Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[maddawg IAJI]

In regards to the recent thread where the OP asked if anybody had ever pirated a video game, can we get an official clarification, in the body of the forum rules themselves, stating whether or not it is against the rules to admit to having committed piracy without advocating it? The mod that locked the thread said it was against the rules to admit to it, period, but the current rules, as worded, don't even imply that, let alone state it outright. I'd rather not see anybody get in trouble for doing something that isn't against the rules as written, but is apparently against some unstated rule.

The rules are the same, while rewritten. Admitting to committing an illicit act such as piracy is against forum rules, as it has been for a while now. Its also against the last rule, to use the forum appropriately. We're meant to discuss video games, not talk about how many we downloaded for free illegally.

When the topic of piracy comes up, as it frequently does -- including a recent news article by John Funk himself, the discussion of which hit 10 pages -- sometimes it's important to be able to admit to it, especially if, say, you were a pirate when you were a kid, but you saw the error of your ways when you got older -- or, even better for an argument about piracy, when you got a job.

As for admitting to an illicit act being against the rules: no, it really isn't. Those rules are a contract between the escapist and its members. As written, and as agreed to, it is against the rules to advocate illegal or pornographic materials, which would include piracy, but it is not illegal to admit to them. The irony in this is that, by the letter of the law, it's okay to admit to piracy as long as you also admit that it's legally or morally wrong, but it's a bannable offense to admit to enjoying pornography, and thinking that it's a good thing -- which has already been clarified as being the opposite of what was intended. If we're going to have a rule enforced, it had better be the rule that's actually written, and not some arbitrary, unwritten rule, which isn't even equally enforced -- how many people have admitted to underage drinking or illegal drug use without getting mod wrath? Because those are actually criminal offenses, as opposed to the relatively minor civil offense of copyright infringement.

We really need to hear from an actual mod on this. You're the second user in two days that I've had this argument with, but I have yet to hear from a mod, despite this being the official thread for the new forum rules, and the other one being in response to an individual being reported for exactly this offense, meaning somebody should have seen the post after checking the mod queue.

How many people have you seen admitting to Piracy have claimed it to be a moral and ethical wrong? The many I've seen tend to do it because they don't want to pay for the game, because they're afraid of it being a bad game, because they prefer the perks that come with pirating it and some because they use it as a demo. Selfish reasons to preform a selfish act. Laws differ around the world regarding drug use such as Marijuana or Alcohol. As an international forum, we can't follow the law of any one country and rather then just black-list it entirely, the staff members have allowed those to slide. Piracy is treated the same all over the world, it is a crime in every country with access to the Internet. As for unwritten rules, if I recall correctly, before November, the 'Don't be a jerk' rule was unwritten and has only now been recently added in written format. The rules haven't changed, they've just become more diverse and they've plugged up any possible loopholes.

But my views on the situation don't matter, if you need to reach a moderator then feel free to contact them. Sevre is one right now, and I think Cold Storage and Zombie Fish are as well. You could even go to the group there to serve as a question and answer forum between Moderators and users. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Moderation-Team. They'd be happy to answer your questions and you would be better off then posting in here and hoping to get a response.

 

[Exosus]

If you're not enjoying yourself here, then GO AWAY and let the rest of us do so.

And please, cut the theatrics out, if you don't enjoy being here, then why are you here?

I do actually enjoy coming here to debate the merits of free speech and provide a (desperately needed) outside opinion on occasion. Apart from that I do mostly stay out of things with the exception of instances of extreme boredom when things show up in my sidebar on a ZP or Unskippable video. As to my "theatrics," I'm afraid that's going to have to stay. I am, as they say, what I am, and I find that sarcasm and what you term theatrics are some of the more effective rhetorical techniques when dealing with people inured to a certain way of thinking or system of action. It shakes people up, gets them thinking critically instead of reciting talking points. That said, if it really bothers you then you have my permission to ignore or skim as it suits you - my feelings will not be hurt.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

If you're not enjoying yourself here, then GO AWAY and let the rest of us do so.

And please, cut the theatrics out, if you don't enjoy being here, then why are you here?

I do actually enjoy coming here to debate the merits of free speech and provide a (desperately needed) outside opinion on occasion.

The problem is that this isn't a debate free speech. You can go to many other political forums if you're looking for that. This is a debate on forum rules and how they should be implemented and I honestly don't have a problem with them.

And you are hardly special for being an outside opinion. We're all outside opinions. I don't work for the Escapist after all. Even most of the red guards who posted in this thread earlier count as outside opinions.

 

[Exosus]

The problem is that this isn't a debate free speech. You can go to many other political forums if you're looking for that. This is a debate on forum rules and how they should be implemented and I honestly don't have a problem with them.

And you are hardly special for being an outside opinion. We're all outside opinions. I don't work for the Escapist after all. Even most of the red guards who posted in this thread earlier count as outside opinions.

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of you are very much a part of this community you have become, as I mentioned, inured to its conventions, both enforced and unenforced, and therefore your opinion becomes one of the insider, of the community member. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not saying your not a special flower with a lot of love to give, but you are most definitely a part of things, an insider.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

The problem is that this isn't a debate free speech. You can go to many other political forums if you're looking for that. This is a debate on forum rules and how they should be implemented and I honestly don't have a problem with them.

And you are hardly special for being an outside opinion. We're all outside opinions. I don't work for the Escapist after all. Even most of the red guards who posted in this thread earlier count as outside opinions.

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of you are very much a part of this community you have become, as I mentioned, inured to its conventions, both enforced and unenforced, and therefore your opinion becomes one of the insider, of the community member. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not saying your not a special flower with a lot of love to give, but you are most definitely a part of things, an insider.

Because the internet is an international network and therefore the protection of Free-Speech does not apply here. Even then, they don't apply censorship. We agreed to these rules and conditions twice already, once when we signed the Themis-Media terms and conditions and again when the second rules were passed when we were told that we had to agree to the new rules in order to take part in the community. This isn't a matter of Censorship, this is a matter of holding up your end of the deal by following the rules you agreed to.

Also, so being a member of the community who lurks here makes your opinion from the outside more credible? How does that work? If anything it would make your opinion less credible as you don't have knowledge of the norms of the community, what happens here and what changes the site goes through. If you do have this knowledge, then you're also aware and have grown accustomed to the several additions to the old rules, the new moderators, the additions of new forums and these new rules.

So which are you? A outsider who is less credible on the changes the site and community have gone through (How would you even know what we consider draconian or not?) or are you an insider who is in the same boat as the rest of us? Even then, I don't think your placement matters. No one here is going to take your opinion and view of the situation above anyone's view.

 

[tologna]

Ok, easy enough to follow. If i feel like being a jerk, i'll go troll 4chan.

trolling 4chan is like toasting toast, drownig a fish, or burning a fire. it's redundent, i guess, would be my point...

 

[razer17]

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of

Because in a set community their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's like you wouldn't let someone into an AA meeting with a bottle of scotch extolling the virtues of booze. Yes you can go outside in the street and shout about it to your hearts content, but in that community they have their rules. In this community the rules are don't insult people and such.

 

[Greasemoicockneypalm]

This is like the nerd gestapo. You guys all need to man up.

 

[Greasemoicockneypalm]

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of

Because in a set community their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's like you wouldn't let someone into an AA meeting with a bottle of scotch extolling the virtues of booze. Yes you can go outside in the street and shout about it to your hearts content, but in that community they have their rules. In this community the rules are don't insult people and such.

Actually, here at Addicts Anonymous people do extol the virtues of their favourite poisons constantly (video games), so your analogy is a bit passe. What you object to is people disagreeing with each other because they just can't hack it.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of

Because in a set community their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's like you wouldn't let someone into an AA meeting with a bottle of scotch extolling the virtues of booze. Yes you can go outside in the street and shout about it to your hearts content, but in that community they have their rules. In this community the rules are don't insult people and such.

Actually, here at Addicts Anonymous people do extol the virtues of their favourite poisons constantly (video games), so your analogy is a bit passe. What you object to is people disagreeing with each other because they just can't hack it.

No, what we object to is people flaming for the sake of flaming, similar to what you did in your first post. We don't mind constructive criticism, the reason this rule exists is so we can punish those who decide to leave out the constructive part of it. When you go to an Alcoholic's Anonymous meeting, one of the 12 steps involves admitting you have a problem and dubbing it as a past error. If you enjoy booze and it didn't affect you negatively to be dubbed an error, you wouldn't be in AA in the first place.

Its the same case here. We will not tolerate flames and insults from other users. If that makes me a member of the 'nerd gestapo', then so be it.

 

[Greasemoicockneypalm]

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of

Because in a set community their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's like you wouldn't let someone into an AA meeting with a bottle of scotch extolling the virtues of booze. Yes you can go outside in the street and shout about it to your hearts content, but in that community they have their rules. In this community the rules are don't insult people and such.

Actually, here at Addicts Anonymous people do extol the virtues of their favourite poisons constantly (video games), so your analogy is a bit passe. What you object to is people disagreeing with each other because they just can't hack it.

No, what we object to is people flaming for the sake of flaming, similar to what you did in your first post. We don't mind constructive criticism, the reason this rule exists is so we can punish those who decide to leave out the constructive part of it. When you go to an Alcoholic's Anonymous meeting, one of the 12 steps involves admitting you have a problem and dubbing it as a past error. If you enjoy booze and it didn't affect you negatively to be dubbed an error, you wouldn't be in AA in the first place.

Its the same case here. We will not tolerate flames and insults from other users. If that makes me a member of the 'nerd gestapo', then so be it.

Alright maybe nerd gestapo was a bit harsh. The point I was making before you hit me with a tidal wave of 'we and you' self-righteousness was that people can't deal with different points of view online without frustratedly calling for the moderator. If my tone seems rude then by all means be offended, it's your call. But I didn't swear and didn't blurt anything nonsensical so you don't really have anything to worry about.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of

Because in a set community their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's like you wouldn't let someone into an AA meeting with a bottle of scotch extolling the virtues of booze. Yes you can go outside in the street and shout about it to your hearts content, but in that community they have their rules. In this community the rules are don't insult people and such.

Actually, here at Addicts Anonymous people do extol the virtues of their favourite poisons constantly (video games), so your analogy is a bit passe. What you object to is people disagreeing with each other because they just can't hack it.

No, what we object to is people flaming for the sake of flaming, similar to what you did in your first post. We don't mind constructive criticism, the reason this rule exists is so we can punish those who decide to leave out the constructive part of it. When you go to an Alcoholic's Anonymous meeting, one of the 12 steps involves admitting you have a problem and dubbing it as a past error. If you enjoy booze and it didn't affect you negatively to be dubbed an error, you wouldn't be in AA in the first place.

Its the same case here. We will not tolerate flames and insults from other users. If that makes me a member of the 'nerd gestapo', then so be it.

Alright maybe nerd gestapo was a bit harsh. The point I was making before you hit me with a tidal wave of 'we and you' self-righteousness was that people can't deal with different points of view online without frustratedly calling for the moderator. If my tone seems rude then by all means be offended, it's your call. But I didn't swear and didn't blurt anything nonsensical so you don't really have anything to worry about.

No, we can, what we can't deal with is just plain old flames. The problem arises with users who don't see that they've done. For example, you claim you have done nothing wrong by saying "This is like the nerd gestapo. You guys need to man up."

You don't need to swear to be offensive and it seems pretty nonsensical to me, as you typed it off-topic as a response to me and the others who are arguing for the rules in this thread.You're claiming that we're not mature and grown up for doing what we do. That is an example of flaming. So please, don't play the whole "I didn't do anything wrong" card when I can see everything you just said.

 

[Greasemoicockneypalm]

How is a debate about forum rules as they apply to censorship NOT about free speech?

As to the outside opinion bit, in some sense you are correct, but because most of

Because in a set community their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's like you wouldn't let someone into an AA meeting with a bottle of scotch extolling the virtues of booze. Yes you can go outside in the street and shout about it to your hearts content, but in that community they have their rules. In this community the rules are don't insult people and such.

Actually, here at Addicts Anonymous people do extol the virtues of their favourite poisons constantly (video games), so your analogy is a bit passe. What you object to is people disagreeing with each other because they just can't hack it.

No, what we object to is people flaming for the sake of flaming, similar to what you did in your first post. We don't mind constructive criticism, the reason this rule exists is so we can punish those who decide to leave out the constructive part of it. When you go to an Alcoholic's Anonymous meeting, one of the 12 steps involves admitting you have a problem and dubbing it as a past error. If you enjoy booze and it didn't affect you negatively to be dubbed an error, you wouldn't be in AA in the first place.

Its the same case here. We will not tolerate flames and insults from other users. If that makes me a member of the 'nerd gestapo', then so be it.

Alright maybe nerd gestapo was a bit harsh. The point I was making before you hit me with a tidal wave of 'we and you' self-righteousness was that people can't deal with different points of view online without frustratedly calling for the moderator. If my tone seems rude then by all means be offended, it's your call. But I didn't swear and didn't blurt anything nonsensical so you don't really have anything to worry about.

No, we can, what we can't deal with is just plain old flames. The problem arises with users who don't see that they've done. For example, you claim you have done nothing wrong by saying "This is like the nerd gestapo. You guys need to man up."

You don't need to swear to be offensive and it seems pretty nonsensical to me, as you typed it off-topic as a response to me and the others who are arguing for the rules in this thread.You're claiming that we're not mature and grown up for doing what we do. That is an example of flaming. So please, don't play the whole "I didn't do anything wrong" card when I can see everything you just said.

Oh my god, you caught me! Please, don't tell anyone and I will give you one meelion pesos as compensation. But seriously, this is verging on ridiculous, I can not believe that you are this upset about some guy telling you that you may be taking this rules thing a little too seriously. Just chill, have some crack, talk to your dog, i don't know how you guys chill in Mexico but whatever and stop interrogating me over my insulting comments like some kind of nerdy anonymous gestapo officer. Haha JOKES I like you man you know what I mean? You've got spunk, you respect the law but you're still cool, you know? You should tots add me as a Escapist friend.

Stay frosty brocicle

 

[Yog Sothoth]

WHAT AN UTTER AND COMPLETE LOAD OF SHIT.

I'VE NOW LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THE ESCAPIST. I FELT THAT THINGS HERE WERE GETTING BAD, BUT I HAD NO IDEA UNTIL TODAY AND FOUND LISA JIGGLE-TITS SELLING SEX ON THE FRONT PAGE OF A PUBLICATION THAT WAS ONCE A CHAMPION OF WOMENS' RIGHTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO GAMING. THE ESCAPIST IS NO LONGER AN INTELLIGENT, PROGRESSIVE SOURCE OF GAME NEWS, ITS JUST AS BAD AS IGN, GAMESPOT AND THE REST, PERHAPS WORSE FOR THIS GLARING HYPOCRISY AND REVERSAL. I LOVE BOOBS AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY, BUT THERE IS ALREADY THE WHOLE OF THE FUCKING 'NET IF YOU WANT THAT. THE ESCAPIST USED TO BE DIFFERENT AND THAT'S WHAT I CAME HERE FOR. I GUESS I'LL GO BACK TO GAMESPOT FOR MY NEWS SINCE I AT LEAST KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THEM.

WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED, SUSAN ARENDT? OH I KNOW, YOU FINALLY SOLD OUT. I SUPPOSE THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY IT WAS OK FOR ONE OF THE MODS TO CALL ME A JERK BECAUSE I STATED THAT I WOULDN'T BE PAYING TO GET INTO YOUR WALLED GARDEN SINCE I USE FLASH-BLOCK TO DISABLE THE ADS HERE AND SAW NO REASON TO PAY FOR THAT "SERVICE".

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE TRADED YOUR JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR? I HOPE IT KEEPS YOU UP EVERY NIGHT AS YOU TOSS & TURN FITFULLY ON YOUR GIANT PILE OF MONEY.

I WILL NOT BE COMING BACK TO THIS STEAMING PILE OF SHIT, NOW OR EVER. FUCK YOU, ESCAPIST "MAGAZINE".

 

[Emissary Laito]

You mean something like this? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.258128.9709781] This is how I personally handle warnings, because I feel unless some indicator is presented on posts that receive a warning, I.E. an infraction that the public isn't made aware of, then people will generally assume that post received no moderator attention/was not dealt with. Whereas something that lets people know it has been handle doesn't have that problem, and it's easier on moderators too.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant.
Funny actually, I'd seen some of your warnings before I suggested that, I just didn't remember them at the time. Maybe they put the idea in my head to an extent.

I agree with your reasoning though. If I see a post with no indicator that it received any moderator attention, I'll assume it didn't.
It helps make the rules for what can be posted a lot clearer, so thanks ^^

 

[delet]

So I've gotten myself a lovable bit of mod wrath. I'm ok with it; I'm not appealing it. I simply want to use it as an example to hopefully better explain an argument I wish to present.

I got my little Probation for "Insulting other users and their opinions." The problem, though, is that not once did I insult the person. I insulted his mindset. I insulted the idea he was presenting. It was an idea that I disagreed with, and so I said as much. I may be a tad blunt with the things I say, but that is only to better and more clearly get my point across. This comes at the cost of rubbing a few more people the wrong way which is unfortunate, but unavoidable if I want to present my arguments as clearly as I am accustomed to.

The problem with restricting the combating of ideas is that there is then nothing left to say. I'd simply be left with "Yes, you're right," or "No, you're wrong," as responses, and thus I'd be rid of the style of writing and responding to posts that has come to characterize me. When I say something along the lines of, "your sentiment is idiotic" it means that the idea you are presenting is very wrong. By saying it as such, I show very clearly and easily what my sentiment is. If I were to simply say, "That idea is very wrong," it would lack much of the force and power of the former quote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but people's opinions can still be wrong. Even so, if I say such things about someone's opinion like in the post I got my probation for and the person I am responding to takes issue with that, then they can argue the points behind their opinion in an attempt to show me otherwise. Is that not how an intelligent discussion should be performed? What I did was not "attacking a person for sharing their opinion," but rather simply stating my opinion of their opinion.

How can I expect to freely continue posting on these forums if every little thing I say is going to be misconstrued as an attack upon someone else? I understand that limits must be placed, but if I can't make a post which is only at fault for being blunt and which is not even complained about by the person I am replying to, then how can I hope to make decent arguments?

 

[lacktheknack]

So I've gotten myself a lovable bit of mod wrath. I'm ok with it; I'm not appealing it. I simply want to use it as an example to hopefully better explain an argument I wish to present.

I got my little Probation for "Insulting other users and their opinions." The problem, though, is that not once did I insult the person. I insulted his mindset. I insulted the idea he was presenting. It was an idea that I disagreed with, and so I said as much. I may be a tad blunt with the things I say, but that is only to better and more clearly get my point across. This comes at the cost of rubbing a few more people the wrong way which is unfortunate, but unavoidable if I want to present my arguments as clearly as I am accustomed to.

The problem with restricting the combating of ideas is that there is then nothing left to say. I'd simply be left with "Yes, you're right," or "No, you're wrong," as responses, and thus I'd be rid of the style of writing and responding to posts that has come to characterize me. When I say something along the lines of, "your sentiment is idiotic" it means that the idea you are presenting is very wrong. By saying it as such, I show very clearly and easily what my sentiment is. If I were to simply say, "That idea is very wrong," it would lack much of the force and power of the former quote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but people's opinions can still be wrong. Even so, if I say such things about someone's opinion like in the post I got my probation for and the person I am responding to takes issue with that, then they can argue the points behind their opinion in an attempt to show me otherwise. Is that not how an intelligent discussion should be performed? What I did was not "attacking a person for sharing their opinion," but rather simply stating my opinion of their opinion.

How can I expect to freely continue posting on these forums if every little thing I say is going to be misconstrued as an attack upon someone else? I understand that limits must be placed, but if I can't make a post which is only at fault for being blunt and which is not even complained about by the person I am replying to, then how can I hope to make decent arguments?

I'm gonna agree with Aby here. I've found that blunt, "I mean this" statements can stop deliberate misunderstandings, even though they're a bit tactless.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

So I've gotten myself a lovable bit of mod wrath. I'm ok with it; I'm not appealing it. I simply want to use it as an example to hopefully better explain an argument I wish to present.

I got my little Probation for "Insulting other users and their opinions." The problem, though, is that not once did I insult the person. I insulted his mindset. I insulted the idea he was presenting. It was an idea that I disagreed with, and so I said as much. I may be a tad blunt with the things I say, but that is only to better and more clearly get my point across. This comes at the cost of rubbing a few more people the wrong way which is unfortunate, but unavoidable if I want to present my arguments as clearly as I am accustomed to.

The problem with restricting the combating of ideas is that there is then nothing left to say. I'd simply be left with "Yes, you're right," or "No, you're wrong," as responses, and thus I'd be rid of the style of writing and responding to posts that has come to characterize me. When I say something along the lines of, "your sentiment is idiotic" it means that the idea you are presenting is very wrong. By saying it as such, I show very clearly and easily what my sentiment is. If I were to simply say, "That idea is very wrong," it would lack much of the force and power of the former quote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but people's opinions can still be wrong. Even so, if I say such things about someone's opinion like in the post I got my probation for and the person I am responding to takes issue with that, then they can argue the points behind their opinion in an attempt to show me otherwise. Is that not how an intelligent discussion should be performed? What I did was not "attacking a person for sharing their opinion," but rather simply stating my opinion of their opinion.

How can I expect to freely continue posting on these forums if every little thing I say is going to be misconstrued as an attack upon someone else? I understand that limits must be placed, but if I can't make a post which is only at fault for being blunt and which is not even complained about by the person I am replying to, then how can I hope to make decent arguments?

But perhaps even more importantly, my Jesus post should probably have never put me on probation.

 

[Agent Poole]

Im very sorry but some of the rules are just plane daft like you cant put all caps in a post why not?

 

[D Moness]

Im very sorry but some of the rules are just plane daft like you cant put all caps in a post why not?

Because full caps look like screaming. You do not scream to your friends in a normal conversation. It is common decency not to use full caps. I think it is even sad they have to be included in the rules