Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

Recommended Videos

invader sloth

New member
Nov 28, 2010
22
0
0
NewClassic said:
So, explain how we can fix it. Talk about the best and brightest possible solutions. I'm all ears.
get rid of the grey area in regards to content.
obviously I only recently created an account, but having been coming to this site for a long time before that, I have to say that the forums seem to have an inconsistent set of morals and standards, especially considering the nature of some of the site's content.
 

Steppin Razor

New member
Dec 15, 2009
6,868
0
0
I believe the intent behind the new code of conduct to be good, but I take issue with the way it is worded and how there has been a complete removal of any examples of what is worthy of modwrath. The code of conduct is vague and easily allows for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The old rules were far from perfect, but they at least provided a guideline that gave users an idea of what was acceptable behaviour. Users familiar with the old rules already have an idea of what is and isn't accepted, but what of new users? For example:

[HEADING=2]Put Some Effort Into Your Communication[/HEADING]
A well-made thread or a well-written comment engages its audience and facilitates discussion. We do ask that posters take just a little time to make their posts as readable as possible and keep their responses on topic. We also ask that you take a moment to check your spelling and grammar.
By this rule, if someone makes a short, but well-written, comment that perfectly sums up their opinion and engages other users, or posts up a picture that accomplishes the same thing, then it would be perfectly acceptable. It is only when you go into this thread itself that you discover that posts are expected to be longer than a single sentence, and that picture responses are frowned upon. The wording of this rule is at odds with what you, the mods, have stated is an acceptable post.

A new user to the site will be greeted with the code of conduct, they'll have a quick read of it, and they will not see anything at all that tells them that short/picture responses are frowned upon. This isn't the user's fault, it is a lack of clarity in the rules themselves as to what is and is not considered to be putting effort into your communication. A slight rewording to include the generally accepted minimum post length and that picture responses aren't tolerated would go a long way to making this rule better, and far less likely to result in drama and histrionics as a user (rightly) points out that there is no such official rule in place against short posts.
[HR]The other point I wish to address at the moment is on this:

[HEADING=2]Penalties[/HEADING]There are no hard and fast rules on what punishment you will receive should you break any of these rules. Instead, we will make the punishment fit the infraction and the individual. We do not enjoy banning people, but we will not hesitate to do so if we think that a person's removal will have an overall positive effect on the community.
I am well aware that punishments have always been up to the individual mods and that one will hand out a warning or a probation for one thing, whilst another will go straight to the suspension for the exact same infraction. Like all systems, this one has flaws, but for the most part I have not noticed too much trouble with it and I am perfectly content with that system as it stands right now.

The new rules on the penalties, however, leaves me scratching my head. Just because there are no hard and fast rules on what punishment will be handed out for what does not mean you should remove any reference to the sort of modwrath a user might receive. Anyone unfamiliar with the old rules will have no knowledge of the punishments that may be handed out, nor will they have any idea of the sorts of punishment that various infractions may result in. A basic summary of the types of modwrath that a user can receive and a couple examples of the sort of behaviour that will generally result in either a warning, probation, suspension or permaban, would improve this immeasurably. This is not to say that a detailed explanation of everything is necessary, just that a basic guideline of what users can generally expect would help to clarify this and clear up any of the confusion surrounding it.

[hr]There are a few other issues I have that I'll probably get around to addressing at some point fairly soonish, but I'm still mulling them over while I try to figure out if I can make any suggestions for improvement. Merely disagreeing without offering my opinion on how to make things better would be rather pointless in this case.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
Steppin Razor said:
To touch on your first part, no one will ever be punished for a low-content post, especially if it is their first one and a mod would happily explain it to them. Granted, this could be avoided if they included it in the rules, but low-content posts were a problem even before these rules were in place. No amount of clarification will really stop them, but I'm sure that if the users set the right example, then new users will take notice and learn to write their opinion out in detail.

The second part can also be easily solved by a user who lurks or just a user who looks around a bit. I could easily find an example of probation and suspension over time and eventually, I would probably run into what a ban is.

The rules certainly couldn't hurt from the additions you suggested, but for the most part, the community can show-case what is acceptable and what isn't and most new members can contact a moderator or staff member if they're confused about something. While they may be vague in certain areas, I place my faith that new users will not have a problem with them.
 

Steppin Razor

New member
Dec 15, 2009
6,868
0
0
maddawg IAJI said:
To touch on your first part, no one will ever be punished for a low-content post, especially if it is their first one and a mod would happily explain it to them. Granted, this could be avoided if they included it in the rules, but low-content posts were a problem even before these rules were in place. No amount of clarification will really stop them, but I'm sure that if the users set the right example, then new users will take notice and learn to write their opinion out in detail.
Ah, but what is the point of a rule if the enforcers of said rule contradict it? The rule specifically states that "a well-written comment engages its audience and facilitates discussion". If a user posts a 5 word comment that "engages its audience and facilitates discussion", they will receive a warning from the mods. And they can then argue, (quite rightly) that the mod has warned them over something that clearly is not within the official rules of the site. If you want posts to live up to a certain standard, then you have to let people know what that standard is.

As for punishments, people can and do get hit with probations and suspensions for low-content posts. Granted, they are usually repeat offenders, but it's a simple fact that it does happen. And as for warning the users if it's their first time, I'm certain that including this little bit of information in the rules will at least cut back on the need for some of that. Not everyone reads the rules properly, but at least some people do. And those that do will know not to post "First!" and "LOL" in response to a thread/comment, thereby cutting down on the time the mods have to waste addressing low content posts.

The second part can also be easily solved by a user who lurks or just a user who looks around a bit. I could easily find an example of probation and suspension over time and eventually, I would probably run into what a ban is.
The onus does not lie with the user to figure out what is and isn't acceptable, it lies with the site and the rules themselves. A user should not have to rely on seeing others break the rules to know what they can and can't say, they should be given at least a small idea of what is expected of them. A large amount of this is covered by the "Respect other users" rule, but other infractions that were addressed in the old rules are bound to fit between the cracks of the code of conduct, and when a user does end up being probated or suspended for committing one of these infractions, who is truly at fault? The user who wasn't aware that this wasn't allowed? Or the site for not even providing a basic guideline of acceptable behaviour?

Vague is bad. Too specific is bad. A midpoint between the two is required to balance out the issues of both.

The rules certainly couldn't hurt from the additions you suggested, but for the most part, the community can show-case what is acceptable and what isn't and most new members can contact a moderator or staff member if they're confused about something. While they may be vague in certain areas, I place my faith that new users will not have a problem with them.
Faith is something I am generally lacking in regards to people, so....

I dunno, I guess this is just a difference of opinion where I think that a sizable number of people will misinterpret the vagueness of the whole thing, and you think they won't. Hopefully you turn out to be right and my fears prove to be unfounded.
 

Claymorez

Our King
Apr 20, 2009
1,961
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
Swollen Goat said:
Also, the way posts are chosen for modding is sporadic too.
The way they answer these qualms with the new system is just as sporadic. It really shows the issues we have with consistency when the answers are not consistent. We have one mod saying that all posts with negative connotation will be modded and other mods saying it's entirely infraction based. Some have a zero tolerance policy for criticism, while others are pretty happy go lucky about what people say, as long as it isn't fascist.

The level of agreement we see between the moderators in these answers is the greatest gauge we have for evaluating these new rules, and so far they suck.
Would it comfort you to know that we plan to release an addition guide to coincide with the rules that comprehensively explains each rule and all its implications. Plus we are only human - by having more than one moderator with different personalities it means that 9/10 if one of us chooses to ignore an infringement for whatever reason another will pick it up or the opposite is also true.

P.s. Feel free to quote or pm me questions about the new rules - I will do my best to answer!
 

Claymorez

Our King
Apr 20, 2009
1,961
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
Claymorez said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
Swollen Goat said:
Also, the way posts are chosen for modding is sporadic too.
The way they answer these qualms with the new system is just as sporadic. It really shows the issues we have with consistency when the answers are not consistent. We have one mod saying that all posts with negative connotation will be modded and other mods saying it's entirely infraction based. Some have a zero tolerance policy for criticism, while others are pretty happy go lucky about what people say, as long as it isn't fascist.

The level of agreement we see between the moderators in these answers is the greatest gauge we have for evaluating these new rules, and so far they suck.
Would it comfort you to know that we plan to release an addition guide to coincide with the rules that comprehensively explains each rule and all its implications. Plus we are only human - by having more than one moderator with different personalities it means that 9/10 if one of us chooses to ignore an infringement for whatever reason another will pick it up or the opposite is also true.

P.s. Feel free to quote or pm me questions about the new rules - I will do my best to answer!
Yes, yes it would. Why didn't you guys just do this at the start of the entire ordeal?
Combination of reasons, mainly to see how people interpreted the new rules and thus when we went and wrote such a guide/companion we could write it in a way that put to ease any confusions people might have or concerns and thus we could further cover any topics we had missed or removed by accident from the previous rules. At the moment the first form of the guide is going through vetting.
 

Steppin Razor

New member
Dec 15, 2009
6,868
0
0
Claymorez said:
Would it comfort you to know that we plan to release an addition guide to coincide with the rules that comprehensively explains each rule and all its implications. Plus we are only human - by having more than one moderator with different personalities it means that 9/10 if one of us chooses to ignore an infringement for whatever reason another will pick it up or the opposite is also true.

P.s. Feel free to quote or pm me questions about the new rules - I will do my best to answer!
Uh-huh. Fair enough then.

Well I hope the vagueness of "Don't be a jerk" is at least cleared up a little by this. Having a core rule that vague and open to interpretation is a little unsettling.
 

catalyst8

New member
Oct 29, 2008
374
0
0
Great news & thanks! I'm genuinely glad to see this updated & enforced Code of Conduct. Hopefully the forum contributions will regain the relatively high standard they had a couple of years ago. Judging by the amount of recently banned & suspended Escapists it should be a very short retrogression.
 

Fire Daemon

Quoth the Daemon
Dec 18, 2007
3,204
0
0
As far as I can remember the basic guideline to the forums has always been 'Don't be a Jerk', but for a long time this rule has felt quite out of date and ineffective. When there was a single moderator a person would be able to see this moderator's tolerance for jerk behaviour and how far you could push him. Having a single moderator created a clear and always present standard of which a person can act on the forum. The fact that the website was smaller at the time also allowed for the moderator to let as little as possible slip through the gaps, and it also allowed for everyone to see the punishment dealt. Generally speaking, if someone did receive a ban everyone would know about it which further strengthens everyone's knowledge as to what level the bar is set for the forum.

Now, however, with a variety of moderators and many more people posting and making threads than in the past, this vague rule no longer works.

The moderators are no longer one, a varied group of individuals and they have different opinions on what constitutes a jerk. A person who touches a nerve for one moderator may be over looked by another, which is a horrible system. A little while ago I saw a user receiving strife for an anti-anime comment, but this comment felt like the sort of thing that would only insult a fan of the media. I personally would not have remembered the post at all if it didn't result in trouble, I only wish that I could find it now. The point is that with out this clear definition of what the moderation team considers to be a jerk you introduce a random variable as to whether that post is ban worthy or not, you don't know how it'll be received. Will this post be noticed by the moderator who agrees with/enjoys my comment, or will it be be noticed by the person who does not? is a question many users (myself included) potentially find themselves asking when they create a post because of a vague rule enforced by a group of people with varied definitions of that rule.

What I think needs to be done is to take jerk out of the equation. Jerk is too open for both new users and moderators. Someone coming from /b/ on 4chan.org or somethingawful.com who doesn't want to get banned is probably going to have a different opinion on what constitutes a jerk as to someone here, so you have this group of people who don't think they are trolling/being a jerk, but in the eyes of other members they are. As stated above, moderators can have the same problem, but they can also hide under that vague rule to explain their actions. I'm not saying that anyone does that, but it is theoretically possible and if a new user was banned any complaint would come down to a matter of opinion on what a jerk is. If a police officer were o arrest someone because 'in their opinion' that person was a criminal, law suit doesn't begin to cover it.

So we've removed jerk and replaced it with something else. I think 'deliberately insulting, antagonistic and disruptive' sounds better than jerk. They both pretty much mean the same thing, but the longer it is and the more detail the general rule has the closer it can be followed. More people know exactly what antagonistic behaviour is than jerk behaviour, I think. I actually think the less general rules the better, but if you have to have one, make it detailed and easy to compare to people's actions.

The important part though, is to have examples in the guidelines. The moderators need to sit down and discuss in detail what they consider to be the line which separates the good posts from the bad. Have theoretical examples of what is considered to be deserving of a probation for 3 days, 7 days, two weeks etc. Have the same thing for suspensions and finally a perma-ban. It would help to have a variety of examples for each set of punishments, for example you could have a low content post, an antagonistic post and poorly written post. These examples should be the first moderator action for someone who had just joined, and should be specified as such. By this way people know how to act as soon as they leave the gate. It should also specify that with time and posts you are expected to know how to act and moderator responses may be more sever if you break the rules, despite being an older user. It should also state that smaller infringements over time add up and it is possible to receive a greater punishment for a large number of smaller infringements.

This has a few uses, it shows new users exactly how they shouldn't act, clears up as much confusion as possible, but also sets a standard for the moderators to enforce and follow. It stops a moderator from creating their own personal definitions of guidelines, it allows for every moderator to be held accountable for a standard level of punishment (less varied levels of probation and suspension), allows for a person to argue that their posts were not below the standard of the forum with actual concrete examples of that standard and most importantly makes the moderators act a single entity, which they should have been doing from the start. The fact that we do have varied responses coming from the moderators shows that something is not right with the moderation.

I have a lot more to say about this entire thing, but I think I'll leave it there for now.
 

Claymorez

Our King
Apr 20, 2009
1,961
0
0
Fire Daemon said:
As far as I can remember the basic guideline to the forums has always been 'Don't be a Jerk', but for a long time this rule has felt quite out of date and ineffective. When there was a single moderator a person would be able to see this moderator's tolerance for jerk behaviour and how far you could push him. Having a single moderator created a clear and always present standard of which a person can act on the forum. The fact that the website was smaller at the time also allowed for the moderator to let as little as possible slip through the gaps, and it also allowed for everyone to see the punishment dealt. Generally speaking, if someone did receive a ban everyone would know about it which further strengthens everyone's knowledge as to what level the bar is set for the forum.

Now, however, with a variety of moderators and many more people posting and making threads than in the past, this vague rule no longer works.

The moderators are no longer one, a varied group of individuals and they have different opinions on what constitutes a jerk. A person who touches a nerve for one moderator may be over looked by another, which is a horrible system. A little while ago I saw a user receiving strife for an anti-anime comment, but this comment felt like the sort of thing that would only insult a fan of the media. I personally would not have remembered the post at all if it didn't result in trouble, I only wish that I could find it now. The point is that with out this clear definition of what the moderation team considers to be a jerk you introduce a random variable as to whether that post is ban worthy or not, you don't know how it'll be received. Will this post be noticed by the moderator who agrees with/enjoys my comment, or will it be be noticed by the person who does not? is a question many users (myself included) potentially find themselves asking when they create a post because of a vague rule enforced by a group of people with varied definitions of that rule.

What I think needs to be done is to take jerk out of the equation. Jerk is too open for both new users and moderators. Someone coming from /b/ on 4chan.org or somethingawful.com who doesn't want to get banned is probably going to have a different opinion on what constitutes a jerk as to someone here, so you have this group of people who don't think they are trolling/being a jerk, but in the eyes of other members they are. As stated above, moderators can have the same problem, but they can also hide under that vague rule to explain their actions. I'm not saying that anyone does that, but it is theoretically possible and if a new user was banned any complaint would come down to a matter of opinion on what a jerk is. If a police officer were o arrest someone because 'in their opinion' that person was a criminal, law suit doesn't begin to cover it.

So we've removed jerk and replaced it with something else. I think 'deliberately insulting, antagonistic and disruptive' sounds better than jerk. They both pretty much mean the same thing, but the longer it is and the more detail the general rule has the closer it can be followed. More people know exactly what antagonistic behaviour is than jerk behaviour, I think. I actually think the less general rules the better, but if you have to have one, make it detailed and easy to compare to people's actions.

The important part though, is to have examples in the guidelines. The moderators need to sit down and discuss in detail what they consider to be the line which separates the good posts from the bad. Have theoretical examples of what is considered to be deserving of a probation for 3 days, 7 days, two weeks etc. Have the same thing for suspensions and finally a perma-ban. It would help to have a variety of examples for each set of punishments, for example you could have a low content post, an antagonistic post and poorly written post. These examples should be the first moderator action for someone who had just joined, and should be specified as such. By this way people know how to act as soon as they leave the gate. It should also specify that with time and posts you are expected to know how to act and moderator responses may be more sever if you break the rules, despite being an older user. It should also state that smaller infringements over time add up and it is possible to receive a greater punishment for a large number of smaller infringements.

This has a few uses, it shows new users exactly how they shouldn't act, clears up as much confusion as possible, but also sets a standard for the moderators to enforce and follow. It stops a moderator from creating their own personal definitions of guidelines, it allows for every moderator to be held accountable for a standard level of punishment (less varied levels of probation and suspension), allows for a person to argue that their posts were not below the standard of the forum with actual concrete examples of that standard and most importantly makes the moderators act a single entity, which they should have been doing from the start. The fact that we do have varied responses coming from the moderators shows that something is not right with the moderation.

I have a lot more to say about this entire thing, but I think I'll leave it there for now.
Something like that is in the works thou I am not sure about changing the word jerk so much as explaining what from the perspective of mods constitutes a jerk - i.e. we keep the clause about if you make this forum a less pleasant place we don't want you.
 

Fire Daemon

Quoth the Daemon
Dec 18, 2007
3,204
0
0
Claymorez said:
Something like that is in the works thou I am not sure about changing the word jerk so much as explaining what from the perspective of mods constitutes a jerk - i.e. we keep the clause about if you make this forum a less pleasant place we don't want you.
If something like that is going to be implemented that why not change the guidelines to the code of conduct when everything is ready to be implemented. It isn't like we needed the code of conduct right this instance, it could have been kept back to create a more complete package.

I think if you are going to use a term like Jerk it would make sense to explain exactly what you mean by the word. With a large moderation team it seems important for everyone to be operating on the same interpretation of the rules they enforce.
 

Exosus

New member
Jun 24, 2008
136
0
0
Wait wait wait, you felt like the old rules weren't restrictive ENOUGH? So you made them MORE draconian? Have you ever been ANYWHERE else on the internet??
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
I don't really understand the new rules, you're demanding that we don't criticise something without being constructive. What if I don't like something and my reason is inexplicable? Is that just not acceptable.

I also find it ironic that you request that we don't be negative but your terms try to label people who engage in certain behaviour as 'jerks'. Someone who is a 'jerk' to you, may be to me a witty and insightful member legitimately voicing their opinion.

I was temporarily suspended because I criticised the ridiculously immature show 'I hit it with my axe'. This is a show which I believe is trying to appeal to this idea of a traditional misogynistic geek without stopping to consider how including it on this website negative enforces the traditional view of gamers as emotionally stunted men who are drawn to anything linked with boobs. Not to mention that at no point does this site seem to address the morality of attempting to glamourise or condone the career choice of the people in the show which numerous people would find repugnant. This is another example of your terms being a case of do what I say, not what I do:

"Similarly, posts [...] advocating [...] adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community."

Another great example is the Zero Punctuation series that revels in bad language and unconstructive criticism but is heavily promoted.
 

Vohn_exel

Residential Idiot
Oct 24, 2008
1,357
0
0
So I just spent like an hour reading through everything here, all seven pages. Most of what I would say has been said. I've been a forum mod before, admin as well, for an active if not small community. I know that ya'll don't just flip out and ban stuff without at least first talking it over as mods, and I doubt that one of you would act singularly without at least discussing it with your color coded brethren.

The reason that alot of people are up in arms, is because the rules ARE a bit vague. Even if you don't actually act the way they fear, and haven't in the past, they are afraid that it leaves the door open for someone to do so. I have to admit that from a Mod/Admin standpoint "Don't be a jerk" is a good rule. It's short, simple and to the point. But as a user, and one that has posted in forums FAR more strict and uptight than this one, I agree that it can be rather intimidating to not always know just EXACTLY what you might get banned for. General users mostly just want to be able to make a post without having to truly worry about mod wrath. People that come to site to make trouble, of course, have to worry about how their posts are worded if they want to make trouble for some time. Regular posters don't want to have to worry about that.

I have to say I agree on the vulgarity thing. While I don't believe something like a bunch of dead baby jokes would be acceptable, I've always followed my own rule on the matter when it comes to sights like this. If I watch a video of say, Zero Punctuation, and hear the word "fuck" twenty eight times in a review, I know I don't really have to worry about posting something like that in the forums, at least in response to that itself. I mean if you're trying to keep the forums kid friendly by limiting vulgarity on the forums, if they've already watched the video then there isn't much more the forums could do to them. Again, as a former mod/admin, I see where it's a good idea to keep things under control so that more people come to your sight. But as a user, I shouldn't have to worry about swearing up an down (which I prefer to avoid in the first place,) when commenting on a video that swears more than any sailor on the open seas.

Now as I've said, I've been to some TRULY terrible forums (try to roleplay on the DragonCave forums, and have a good time without being a literary major.) and I doubt this will go any different than it ever does. Users will complain, but ultimately will do nothing and accept the rules as they are. You'll lose a few top posters if it gets real bad, a few oldies or just really invested people. You'll get people that'll leave because those people left. And so on and so forth until the ripples settle. Sadly, no one will really care. People will be upset, people may harbor resentment and grudges, but again, they'll complain but not really do anything about it. The site will continue to function, despite the loss of even the best member.

The staff will most likely do one of two things. They'll take all the criticism, defending their choices to the bone and doing their best to ease any discomfort people have, and then not change anything. Or they will cave and tell everyone that if they want it so specific, it will be, and the rules will either revert to the old ones or become so completely tight that no one enjoys posting here. (The users will respond as I've said above.) It's not that I have little faith in ya'll that you'll listen and adapt the rules as they're addressed, thats just how it works. It's basically like parenting. This thread, in my opinion, is like any other when the rules change. It's there to tell you that regardless of your reasons for hating it, the rules are here and you're just gonna have to get used to it.

It happens in just about every forum I've ever been too. What's happening now is an age old internet growing pain that happens whenever a community changes something. Smaller communities are usually torn apart when this happens (and most communities seem to go through these things in cycles,) with the members "for" ending up staying and the members "against" leaving to form their own boards, with both failing. It's basically "United we stand, divided we fall," on the internet. The good news is that such a community as this, so huge and constantly attracting new members, won't collapse from a few upset forum members.

This basically shows (not use it in a negative light,) what I mean:


Virgil said:
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. That's because you're operating from the perspective of a viewer, and not the point of a content producer. We have a vast amount of information available on how content is doing, and we already know exactly how much that doesn't match up with what the comment threads look like. Here's some of the things we know about a video that you don't, for example:


How many views it gets.
How many unique users view it.
How much it costs to produce.
How much it costs to serve, in bandwidth.
How difficult the creator is to work with.
How much work our editors have to do per video.
What advertisers are interested in it.
What "industry" people think of it
How much traffic it gets outside our site (embedding, etc).
How well the ad units in the video perform.
How well the back catalog performs.
How much the staff like it.


Those statistics are far, far more important in determining the success of a show than forum comments. For example, a show that gets moderate traffic numbers but doesn't cost much, gets shared and embedded, pulls in new users, has above-average ad performance stats, and gets industry contacts fired up to work with us is one we'd consider to be doing well for us, and would be worth keeping around, even if the forums complain about it. I'll let you guess what show that was.

We see time and time again that some shows do well and get terrible comments, while other shows do poorly and get great ones. Why is that? Two reasons:


Once a forum thread turns negative, it stays negative, and the people who would say good things stay away to avoid being attacked.
People that complain about serial content frequently come back to do it again for each episode, repeating the cycle.
The people who comment on our forums represent .3% of the people that look at our content. That's not a typo, it's less than half of one percent.


What it comes down to is that the reason we don't need to see negative comments is because we can already see how well things perform based on hard numbers from our whole audience. The only thing the negative comments do is prevent a community of people that enjoy that content from building up around it. Because of that, we don't want them around here.

Like I said in my previous post on the topic: "If someone doesn't like a particular piece of content, they don't have to watch/read it." If you don't like something, accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, it's not for you, and let the other people who do enjoy it do so. If you do enjoy it but think some things could improve, then post away.
Not to sound rude, but this basically shows what most people in something like this knows. It's a numbers game, and we can be replaced Or (as shown in this case) not really much of a part of the equation. We could all post till we're blue in the face about not really caring for, say "I hit it with my axe," but if the numbers show otherwise, it won't matter if the entire forum hates it. It's the same with Television and movies. "Transformers II" and Justin Beiber will continue to exist even if there are lots of people against them, simply because the numbers show differently. If there's one thing I've learned about life from work, it's that you're really nothing special, and that your number and your contribution can be replaced almost instantaneously, now matter how great that contribution may be. And don't let this post fool you. I know full and well that applies to me and what I post here. I post this expecting that most will glance over it and it'll never be heard from again. Being just a number is the way our society works now, it's not just reserved for big unfeeling companies as it might have been in the fifties.

Now don't get me wrong, I love this place and it's one of the few communities I've felt at home and post at simply because I enjoy the people that post here. I really didn't notice any negative influence taking the site to the dark side, but then again I'm just one guy that only posts sporadically anyway. I've never been moderated here and I hope I don't get moderated. But even in the worst places of the net, I've never posted with a fear of "I don't want to be banned." I won't ever let someone have a position of power (note: not authority) over me because they control something I like. It's served me well so far because most people understand that I respect them, and usually they respect me for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as a human, because I know that even the most terrible people have hearts and are usually just human. It's served me well on other boards and this one as well, and I'm not going to change now. It's basically the same for the forum. Nothing is really going to change, the mods will moderate as they always have. The site will function and survive no matter how many people we lose along the way. The users will post as they always have, and the rules will be what they are now no matter how many are against it. It's happened a hundred times before on hundreds of other websites, and it'll happen again on this one.
 

CosmicCommander

Friendly Neighborhood Troll?
Apr 11, 2009
1,544
0
0
Marik2 said:
Well this means that half of the people that go to the Religion/Politics section will most likely be banned.

And good riddance.
I concur. So many passive-aggressive asses on there.

Anyway, the new rules seem good- I was getting annoyed with all of the anger here.
 

Exosus

New member
Jun 24, 2008
136
0
0
joethekoeller said:
Secondly, yes most of us know how things are handled in other forums and that the Escapist is far less lenient in some regards. We like it that way. Different doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as bad. What exactly would be better about this board if we were to remove those restrictions, Dr. Freeman? Can you name even one thing?
Having freer rules would create more open discussion with less fear of moderator reprisal. I personally avoid all spirited debate entirely when it takes place on Escapist because I know that it will only end with me getting suspended (like it always does). I find it doubtful in the extreme that I'm the only one who feels hemmed in with regard to the rhetorical tactics employed by the rule-bound nature of this place. Free speech is it's own reward, and just because you have the right to restrict something doesn't mean you should.
 

AbyssalSanhedrin

New member
May 8, 2010
124
0
0
Exosus said:
joethekoeller said:
Secondly, yes most of us know how things are handled in other forums and that the Escapist is far less lenient in some regards. We like it that way. Different doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as bad. What exactly would be better about this board if we were to remove those restrictions, Dr. Freeman? Can you name even one thing?
Having freer rules would create more open discussion with less fear of moderator reprisal. I personally avoid all spirited debate entirely when it takes place on Escapist because I know that it will only end with me getting suspended (like it always does). I find it doubtful in the extreme that I'm the only one who feels hemmed in with regard to the rhetorical tactics employed by the rule-bound nature of this place. Free speech is it's own reward, and just because you have the right to restrict something doesn't mean you should.
Despite my lowly join-date and post count I've been around these forums for far longer than most and I agree with this. I would never dare enter a serious discussion here for for of seemingly arbitrary moderation. The age restriction of 13 for a website/forum based around media that is often rated 15 (UK) or higher seems counter-productive. You advertise and advocate adult media every day yet penalize people for humourous but adult themed content all the time (I believe it was SwollenGoat who made a comment about blowjobs that got him/her warned, but it was next to a glowing "overview" of CoD Black Ops, an "adult" game). The whole thing seems hypocritical and mis-managed at every level. Don't even get me started on "You'll be probation-ed for criticising ANYTHING we do".

In eager anticipation of my suspension...

Abyssal...
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
AbyssalSanhedrin said:
Exosus said:
joethekoeller said:
Secondly, yes most of us know how things are handled in other forums and that the Escapist is far less lenient in some regards. We like it that way. Different doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as bad. What exactly would be better about this board if we were to remove those restrictions, Dr. Freeman? Can you name even one thing?
Having freer rules would create more open discussion with less fear of moderator reprisal. I personally avoid all spirited debate entirely when it takes place on Escapist because I know that it will only end with me getting suspended (like it always does). I find it doubtful in the extreme that I'm the only one who feels hemmed in with regard to the rhetorical tactics employed by the rule-bound nature of this place. Free speech is it's own reward, and just because you have the right to restrict something doesn't mean you should.
Despite my lowly join-date and post count I've been around these forums for far longer than most and I agree with this. I would never dare enter a serious discussion here for for of seemingly arbitrary moderation. The age restriction of 13 for a website/forum based around media that is often rated 15 (UK) or higher seems counter-productive. You advertise and advocate adult media every day yet penalize people for humourous but adult themed content all the time (I believe it was SwollenGoat who made a comment about blowjobs that got him/her warned, but it was next to a glowing "overview" of CoD Black Ops, an "adult" game). The whole thing seems hypocritical and mis-managed at every level. Don't even get me started on "You'll be probation-ed for criticising ANYTHING we do".

In eager anticipation of my suspension...

Abyssal...
You're not gonna get a suspension for that. Ever. You're assuming that the moderators are dictator like people who punish everything that offends them. This assumption is widely false.

The use of adult themes differ. Black Ops is a mature rated game, but it isn't porn. There is a major difference between the two. The moderators don't allow us to talk about any game that is rated Mature (especially one as popular as Black Ops), but they won't condone things such as flaming or sexually explicit material. You won't get probation for criticizing either. You'll get probation for flaming.

Saying "You fucking stupid" is flaming. Saying "I don't agree with you and here is why...' is still arguing, but is a very calm and controlled way of doing it.