Poll: New Forum Rules: Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter JoJo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Agreed.JoJo said:
I've brought up the following examples before, asking why nothing had been done in these cases, but I got no replies:
Low content: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.398156.16275670
Calling another user a troll: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.834524.20420620
Calling another user illiterate: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.829148.20201954
Not meaning to be rude, but to me it doesn't look like staff are "held accountable" when they make oopsies on the forums.
After reading the new rules, overall I'd say it's a pretty good change, and I especially like the definitions they added to the "Don't be a Jerk" rule, although the "Offensive Posts" part of it is still overly broad -- anything can and will be offensive to /someone/, and on a forum this size, there's a good chance such a someone will be around to complain.
Also I like the way they reworked the "Use These Forums Appropriately" section, although I wish they had added the clarifications to the other subheadings that they did to the piracy and ad blocker rules. It kind of looks like they were trying to make it clear that the advocating or admitting to parts only applied to the ones it was right after, but that's not quite what it actually did, if you want to get legalistic about it -- in other words, it's still technically against the rules to advocate the legalization of marijuana or admit to enjoying pornography.
That said, while it's not perfect, it's much better than it was.
I just wish they'd hire a lawyer to write up a set of rules that actually say what they're supposed to, or if they can't afford one, a good rules lawyer to go over these things with a fine toothed comb. I mean they've /got/ to have at least one avid MTG player on staff, and you have to think like a lawyer just to understand the card interactions in that one
Also I like the way they reworked the "Use These Forums Appropriately" section, although I wish they had added the clarifications to the other subheadings that they did to the piracy and ad blocker rules. It kind of looks like they were trying to make it clear that the advocating or admitting to parts only applied to the ones it was right after, but that's not quite what it actually did, if you want to get legalistic about it -- in other words, it's still technically against the rules to advocate the legalization of marijuana or admit to enjoying pornography.
That said, while it's not perfect, it's much better than it was.
I just wish they'd hire a lawyer to write up a set of rules that actually say what they're supposed to, or if they can't afford one, a good rules lawyer to go over these things with a fine toothed comb. I mean they've /got/ to have at least one avid MTG player on staff, and you have to think like a lawyer just to understand the card interactions in that one
My last warning/probation came from making an in good humor jab at another user, using the word Twerp. Still kind of annoyed by that, especially after a number of people in the thread pointed out that it seemed a little out of line for a warning.FalloutJack said:
You can always PM a Mod and ask what you've had previous warnings for. I'm sure most of us won't mind giving you a heads up on things to avoid.Tanis said:
There's a difference between clicking on a site video and clicking on an article to read it. =PLionsfan said:
As for the 30 day rule, it does seem a bit short, but considering how many new topics are made every day, you'd be surprised how many threads could happen in that time period.
There is always the option of remaking the thread to start the discussion off again, if a Mod isn't willing to bump it for you.
Not at all surprised that 2 of those are Grey Carter. Despite this change the "do as i say not as i do" attitude will likely continue when it comes to content creators.IceForce said:
Also that line about if the topic is provocative topics/content is bs too. That gives any content creator basically a license to troll if they really wanted and some have in the past.
A couple guys were BANNED for defending me one time. Fortunately, that particular member of the Escapist left.Soviet Heavy said:
Ah, sorry. I wouldn't know about those due to Pubclub. You should talk to the Tech Team [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Tech-Team] about those. :/Lionsfan said:
Le sigh, I still stand by my belief that necroing is much better than new threads and should be allowed. Just because a thread is old does not mean that something new can't be added to the discussion, especially with how circumstances can change. Being punished for adding to a discussion just because of the age of a thread will continue to seem wrong to me.
Still gotta look over the rest of the new rules, but the sound of that being forbidden does bother me.
Still gotta look over the rest of the new rules, but the sound of that being forbidden does bother me.
Wow, there was an agree button? I resent that I wasn't given the chance to not read the changes and blindly agree.
Doesn't make any difference to me. People got banned for that anyway. And yes, I'd still like the ability to discuss things that are pertinent to this site that content creators frequently discuss, and to have threads about those pieces and not officially allow the discussion is pretty fucking mixed message to me.
Although to be fair I've never been penalised for it. But it's a matter of principle. I'd rather be officially allowed to talk about something than rely on the mods being cool.
EDIT: There we go.
Doesn't make any difference to me. People got banned for that anyway. And yes, I'd still like the ability to discuss things that are pertinent to this site that content creators frequently discuss, and to have threads about those pieces and not officially allow the discussion is pretty fucking mixed message to me.
Although to be fair I've never been penalised for it. But it's a matter of principle. I'd rather be officially allowed to talk about something than rely on the mods being cool.
EDIT: There we go.
Overall i personally think that the changes to the rules, relating to Harassment & Bullying are a good thing. When it comes down to it bulling in forums, really isn't appropriate given that there are many well documented consequences of cyber bulling.
In relation to the necroing of old threads, i think that 30 days is about right as finding a thread older than that, would be like looking through a swamp for a pin.
In relation to the necroing of old threads, i think that 30 days is about right as finding a thread older than that, would be like looking through a swamp for a pin.
A couple of other things I'd like to mention.
Having said all this, I do like the bit about targeted harassment & bullying. That rule is definitely appreciated.
So, the many (possibly hundreds) of people who have been banned on this forum, are only a "handful"? Okay then.
This bit is so vague and arbitrary, it's pretty much useless.
Having said all this, I do like the bit about targeted harassment & bullying. That rule is definitely appreciated.
The changes themselves are fine but the CoC rules as they stand now and how they stood then, I really disagree with.
The biggest problem I've seen has to be the Low Content rule. This is by far the most annoying rule of them all along with its ambiguous nature. Sometimes, you may have nothing more to add but a question. But that question's important though. Or maybe an image sums your response perfectly but you can't just put that in. You need to put some arbitrary text there even if it doesn't really belong at all. Not just that, there isn't any sort of Thanks or rep system so if you simply want to give someone props for a post they made, you can't because that would be low content.
Now, it's not hard to avoid getting pegged for it, but make no mistake, it can be rather frustrating and I really think attempts to at least make it more clear should be made.
The biggest problem I've seen has to be the Low Content rule. This is by far the most annoying rule of them all along with its ambiguous nature. Sometimes, you may have nothing more to add but a question. But that question's important though. Or maybe an image sums your response perfectly but you can't just put that in. You need to put some arbitrary text there even if it doesn't really belong at all. Not just that, there isn't any sort of Thanks or rep system so if you simply want to give someone props for a post they made, you can't because that would be low content.
Now, it's not hard to avoid getting pegged for it, but make no mistake, it can be rather frustrating and I really think attempts to at least make it more clear should be made.
I'll try and elaborate but honestly I'm from the UK so I'm not as up to date with any American laws. (I always ask a US moderator when I'm unsure)MarsAtlas said:This could be a problem for quite a few foreseeable reasons.
How do you define "illegal in the United States"? snipsnip.
I'm not intentionally trying to be difficult here, it just seems that the Code of Conduct is really wishy-washy in particular when it says;
"For discussion purposes, users will often need to share anecdotal experience with some of these topics, such as piracy or illegal drugs. Threads where this is allowed should be very clear, but advocating these acts is still not allowed in those threads. Discussion of ad blockers, pedophilia, illegal acts, and pornography is never allowed."
I'm sure that the moderation staff will try to implement reasonable judgment, but I still fear that reasonable discussions may receive mod wrath due to nuanced technicalities or differing judgments.
For what its worth, I do approve of other changes to the Code of Conduct. And its January, get with the times and update that avatar
Since the Escapist offices are based in North Carolina, I'd assume that all rules about pot, etc, would fall under the same laws as that state.
As for the others, I'd tell you that it's safer to just avoid those topics all together, but that would be unfair. It's all down to how you word it, really.
You can always PM a Mod or post in the Mod User Group to see if a post/thread is okay before posting it. That way if you should get an infraction for that post due to a different Mod seeing it, you have evidence that permission was given to you beforehand.
And I'm working on my avatar now! It takes a while to find a good one! D:
All the assurances about how offensive posts aren't allowed won't change the fact that backwards attitudes which are rampant in the gaming community will never be moderated. Basically if we have another gender thread and someone says "A key that opens many locks is a master key but vaginas that can be opened are bad locks" or whatever, that this is incredibly degrading to women is ignored. If I quote that person and say "You're sexist" I'm crossing the line though. Then it's anyone's guess when voicing concerns about the apparent apathy of the mods regarding bigoted attitudes becomes "disrespectful".
Ah well, we don't need minorities stealing our hobbies anyway.
Ah well, we don't need minorities stealing our hobbies anyway.