Poll: New Forum Rules: Yay or Nay?

[JoJo]

Says something about the rules when they're so vaguely strict that they need either additional explanation or the common sense filter.

Indeed, I've criticised the new CoC in this very thread for that reason.

I'm sure you'll eventually figure it out.

Well, there's three possibilities:

[li]You lurked for years on end before joining, certainly possible but I have doubts over whether a lurker would stay around that long and go to the lengths of knowing a forum's rules in depth[/li]
[li]You had a previous account and abandoned it for personal reasons[/li]
[li]You had a previous account but it was banned[/li]

Any clue on which of these is correct?

 

[Aramis Night]

Now they can give warnings for necroing threads without me getting angry. About time it was put in.

Actually, this is why I voted nay. Its a load of shit. I've accidentally done it to a thread because the stupid site sees you read something and gives you a set of related articles only to show that the article is three years old. If you don't want the thread revisited then you shouldn't shove it in my face to begin with.

Also, this would be easier on the site's end to manage. All you have to do is create a nice little bit of code that locks the thread automatically when 30 days has expired from the time of last post.

Punishing someone for this seems lazy as it could be handled easily and proactively on the forum's end.

As i pointed out in a previous post: Those that run this site know that this rule can be dealt with on their end. They are not inept or stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. The point is for more people to banned at their discretion and to have the CoC back them up in doing so. It isn't about the undesired actions, or else as you pointed out, they would make such actions impossible on their end. It's about rooting out those they deem undesirable.

 

[anthony87]

No change to the low content rule? Shame.

 

[anthony87]

Unfortunately, there are perhaps a couple of oversights. Regrettably, this section still exists:

Regardless of what some of our content creators may say, do or provoke within their videos or articles, this does not give members the ability to act in the same way. They are entertainers and if they brought their language or flaming into the forums, they would be held accountable, just as any other forum member of The Escapist would be.

While moderating content creators would obviously be unhelpful, we know from several examples that it doesn't occur and so this section is at best misleading.

Agreed.

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.

Damn, that third example there is just plain mean isn't it?

 

[IceForce]

Damn, that third example there is just plain mean isn't it?

I guess it could be read as him calling a nondescript group of people illiterate, instead of the user being quoted.

But you're right, it's pretty mean and uncalled for.

The content isn't pg-13 though, now is it?

Jim uses "derogatory slang for vagina" + ing as a regular ol' adverb.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread already, the forum rules don't apply to employees of the Escapist.

 

[Muspelheim]

Is good rules. I am in agree with rules. I will of not be caught in necro sabotage. Again. I shall watch my step, like good citizen.

(Joke aside, all fair enough. I think the necro policy is a bit... Unsituational. Thread recycling when it's appropriate isn't a bad idea, and certainly not the same as ordinary necro-posts. Not to mention, they seem to be inadvertant most of the time. But them's the rules.

They're alright, and it's not too much of a change, either way. More clarification-like).

 

[soren7550]

I'm a dummy, so I didn't notice any difference, except the bit about warnings seems to imply that I should of gotten that Neo badge.

You still will.
It goes by posts on the forums now, not by post count in general.
Which is bollox considering we've been around for so long.

So, if you click in the posts tab on your profile, it'll tell you how many you have.

For example, I've only ever had one warning and my post count is over 7000 but half of that is from user groups so I have to wait until my forum post count is 5000.

Right now, yours is 4679 so presumably you'll get your badge in 321 forum posts.

Oooooooooooooooooh. Okay. Never knew that it counted user group posts in your post total.

 

[Weaver]

And PG-13 clearly implies no cursing.

A mod in this very thread said that you can easily get away with "a few fucks".

Also, for someone who's been lurking here forever, you've missed the dozens of times that a staff member have said "This is a PG-13 site", and they've been saying it for years.

But if it's actually PG-13 we can't say "*****" or "****" or other words that are regarded as having some kind of appeal to sexuality.

I basically think it's asinine to point to "PG-13" which is a fuzzy rating standard that can and does change as a ruleset for your forums. If they decide that someone smoking in the movie automatically pushes it into R rated content, can we then not show a picture of a city street where someone is smoking a cigarette?

I realize that's likely not the intent of this "PG-13" rule, but the appeal to it I find entirely unhelpful and incredibly undescriptive in what should be a set of codefied rules.

If this forum was ever an adult forum, then it certainly wasn't by the time I joined almost four years ago, it's been PG-13 from then until now.

It absolutely used to be to my recollection. I don't remember language or threads about sex ever being closed down. I remember there was a thread about your favourite sexual positions and tricks in the bedroom that went on for pages.

 

[Panorama]

I think i over all seem to agree with the changes to the rules, necro rule is definitely a positive. so thumbs up from me.

 

[Marter]

And PG-13 clearly implies no cursing.

Gunner Palace is rated PG-13 and has 42 uses of the "F word." No cursing, eh?

I've been saying this for months, but the mods don't seem to be interested in taking this suggestion on board.

Not in the least bit a moderator decision. We have no control over that sort of thing.

 

[EeveeElectro]

30 day limit on necro threads? That's a bit strict. Surely a few months at least?
Apart from that, I like them. Glad they've cleared a few things up!

 

[Someone Depressing]

"Don't be an asshole."

Seems pretty legit.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's nice they finally came up with the definition for necroing. Other than that it looks the same, I'm OK with it. Obviously. I typed I AGREE didn't I?

 

[Rip Van Rabbit]

You won't be hearing any complaints from me, I'm quite glad that previously unmentioned rules like thread-necros were included. The inclusion of harassment and bullying was a nice touch.

Overall, I'm pretty happy about it.

 

[Lucem712]

We could really use an auto-lock feature so that threads that haven't had a post in 30 days are impossible to reply to. That would stop people coming in from google & performing their foul necromancy.

Also, this would be easier on the site's end to manage. All you have to do is create a nice little bit of code that locks the thread automatically when 30 days has expired from the time of last post.

Punishing someone for this seems lazy as it could be handled easily and proactively on the forum's end.

I've been saying this for months, but the mods don't seem to be interested in taking this suggestion on board.

Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard to implement. Just auto-lock all threads after 30 days of no replies.

It's simple, it saves people from getting warnings, and saves the mods from the extra work of having to deal with necro threads.

The Escapist is coded in such a way that locked threads are removed/deleted completely after 30 days (or something like that.)

That's the reason that they don't just lock old threads and be done with it.

 

[Marter]

Funny you should use the one movie whose PG-13 rating was controversial and has the highest known amounts of curse words in existence among PG-13 movies as your foremost example.

In my experience, it's a pretty common thing around parents to avoid letting their 13-year olds see or hear media with curse words in it. Granted, I don't live in the States so maybe this is just my gross overestimation of the amount of parenting being done there, based on my own experience growing up. Either way, what I meant with those words is easy enough to understand that you don't need to nitpick it with extreme examples, eh?

The point is that profanity isn't forbidden in a PG-13 movie, and if not done to excess it's not forbidden here, either. That was really it.

 

[Teoes]

I vote 'yay' because there is nothing remotely unreasonable or offensive here. But why interpret something when one can misinterpret it? Everything everyone here is complaining about: I fail to care for. Carrying on with life in 3.. 2.. 1..

 

[IceForce]

The Escapist is coded in such a way that locked threads are removed/deleted completely after 30 days (or something like that.)

That's the reason that they don't just lock old threads and be done with it.

So, they should fix that.

When they write the code to automatically lock threads after 30 days of no replies, they should also remove the bit of code that removes/deletes locked threads.

Or is this somehow an impossibility?

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

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.

I feel like the issues with this are more contextual than a solid black or white rule would allow for. If you have a short question that can be answered and done, then the reasoning for the question is relevant. For example, a question like "Why do some people argue that Jennifer Hale's FemShep is better than Mark Meer's MaleShep?" is technically a discussion point and a fine question, but still somewhat low content. Instead of suggesting that arbitrary words afterward take away from it, counterpoint the question with why you might think otherwise, or agree with the position.

If the question has no further depth, and it's discussion value is only that surface level, then why is it a discussion that you want to take place on a forum? In that case, it might be worth deepening the question, so that the depth has sufficient discussion prompt, or that you have a more full opinion on it. If the question has not depth to be plumbed, then it might be worth taking to the IRC channel [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/chat/] to ask, rather than using a longer-form forum space to ask a quick question.

Everyone's mileage on what is or isn't a low content post will vary to some degree, but if the post in question can be summed up by an image macro or a sentence fragment, then it's worth evaluating whether or not the post is about having something to say, or having to say something.

The intent of the low content rule is to keep discussion discursive, rather than an assemblage of one-off jokes or image humor. To that end, it's not unreasonable to ask for more detail and purpose to posts, even if it means the odd joke or post will go unsaid.

I personally wasn't offended by the recent "Yahtzee Incident", but I was by the moderators response to the people that were offended, that Yahtzee or any other site content creator can say what they want, gloves totally off, yet forum users aren't allowed to feel outraged when they feel they've been insulted. I feel that kind of thinking not only promotes a very unhealthy forum atmosphere, but also actively discourages users from participating in forum discussions.

While I agree with you that the double standards here are damn frustrating, I can't really see how it can be fixed.

t would be counter-productive for the Escapist to start censoring its content creators.

It feels worth noting that the Code of Conduct operates largely as forum rules, not precisely site rules. Things that people do or say on videos or in articles aren't always the same thing as what is or isn't okay to write on the forums. In that regard, it's slightly wiser to disassociate the forum environment from the site environment collectively. That means that if you pitch an article to the Escapist, and have it published, you would likely be allowed to do or say things you couldn't on the forums. Given that they tend to operate as separate entities, that's okay.

Speaking as a mod, the rule in place means you can say just about whatever you'd like about a piece of content or its creator as long as it isn't inflammatory and/or destructive. Without those elements, you're largely free to agree or disagree as you'd like.

In my personal opinion, I can't do anything as a moderator to someone who would make a parody or mean-spirited Twitter account, it's not my jurisdiction to have a say in what is or isn't allowed to be said in editorials or videos. As a consumer of media like videos or articles, your voting is done with your wallet. If you don't like a video series or article, don't click them. Don't read them. You're the customer, so your rights extend as far as you're willing to spend or not-spend on things you think are important.

Metaphorically, consider the forums the walls of an open-source art gallery. You're welcome to come in after a paid artist's commission, and use adjacent walls to spray paint your art of choice alongside the piece the gallery has paid to have produced. If your work is more vandalism than art, then of course the gallery will want it (and you) removed.

So, in short, you don't have to agree with the business practices of the Escapist. You're more than welcome not to. That said, it's not unreasonable for the Escapist to want to protect its interests if it feels you've been out of line. Vote with your wallet, not with vandalism.

Speaking as a Brit I don't like the idea that I could be discussing something which is perfectly legal in my country but then get rapped by the mods because it's illegal in the US (eg getting drunk on my twentieth birthday).

For this rule, much of how it's going to be policed is handled by U.S. law primarily, and by age limits secondarily. For example, citing anecdotally that you've had alcohol prior to turning 21 generally isn't a problem. Not only does this vary legally from state to state within the United States, there's a great deal of variance with other countries. There's too much uncertainty and variance in this to effectively police what people can or can't say about local laws or behaviors.

This rule is largely about intent. The difference between relevant information on narcotics in a discussion about police behavior, for instance, is very different than a thread started to encourage someone who's 13 years of age to disregard the law and drink as early/often as possible.

If you feel your intent is to skirt U.S. law, then the post will probably be wrathed. If its a discussion where the illegal act is relevant to the topic, then tone will be the primary factor in what is or isn't okay. "Police should be doing more to prevent money laundering through the country for Mexican drug cartels" is generally okay, but "Drug cartels are in the right to play fast and loose with the laws, down with the man!" isn't ever going to be.

This is a forum that covers a lot of video-game/movie stuff, stuff that is mostly rated "M for Mature", I really dont see the point of trying to claim it as a PG-13 forum where even most of the stuff posted by the content creators isnt rated as such.

Videos and articles can have age gates. Forum accounts can be made from the age 13 on.

It makes sense to have a PG-13 rating for forum posts, even if the comment thread is for a section of the forum that would otherwise be age gated. This rule is largely for courtesy. If younger users can read it, it's better that they're much less likely to run into something they shouldn't.

When evaluating the CoC, you should take the rules into account as well as the obvious desire behind them. What i get from this is that the mods are adding more tools to the banning tool box because there are a lot of people that mods have been wanting to ban for a while, that they couldn't reasonably ban under the old rules. The new rules that are worded vaguely were not done so by accident.

Hey? You think this was intentionally done to allow mods to mod people without giving clear justifications?

I've been around on the moderation team through five or six different community managers, the cast list on the mod team has changed completely at least twice since I've started, and I've been doing this for easily a few years.

In that time, I've spent hours and hours in threads like these, trying to understand issues and clarify uncertain things. I've written several thousand word posts in response to changes in the Code of Conduct, and before when they were "Forum Guidelines" rather than rules. And before when there were just probations and bans rather than mandatory warnings. There have been times when I've been exhausted, headache-addled, checking through reports at 2 A.M. on finals week.

If I wanted the users to go away, or wanted an excuse to ban people, I'd've stopped doing this sort of thing a looong time ago. Take my word as you will, but everything that happens on this side of the curtain is almost always to make things better, easier, and more enjoyable for the users.

But, if you feel this way, I doubt anything I could do or say is going to convince you. I suppose I'm just cynical these days. If you ever have any questions, or want someone to get upset at over moderation, my messages inbox is always open. Further, my Steam and Skype are both listed on my account, I'm on the IRC channel as NewClassic, all of which I'm online on 90% of the time, and I'm almost never too busy to talk about rules or help you configure posts to be as rule-abiding and on-topic as you want them to be.

Feel free to contact me whenever you'd like. I'm pretty sure anyone else on the mod team is likewise happy to help.

I remember a time where this was considered an adult forum and we were allowed to use whatever language we wanted as long as it wasn't excessive or directed at specific users.

The forum has sure gone downhill since then.

The first moderator was a gentleman by the forum name of Joe, and would hand out probations for spelling mistakes in posts. I would argue the quality of the forums between now and then is largely subjective.

No change to the low content rule? Shame.

That rule has been in effect since the first set of Forum Guidelines I read when I first joined the site in... 2008, I think? Either way, I'm pretty sure that rule isn't going anywhere. There's a reason for it.

When they write the code to automatically lock threads after 30 days of no replies, they should also remove the bit of code that removes/deletes locked threads. Or is this somehow an impossibility?

I think the reason for this is largely legacy purposes. Old comment sections for videos and articles would get deleted, a lot of long-term threads like those TimeLord mentioned earlier would be deleted while still viable, and threads like those stickied here in Off-Topic (as well as the forums that have unique rulesets like User Reviews, Forum Games, and RP) would also be lost in the shuffle.

There'd probably need to be a lot of failsafes in order to make important threads not also fall victim to the sweeping code, and should an old thread ever need to be referenced in a new post, it wouldn't be there. It makes sense, to me, to have this be personally policed rather than systematically.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>much snippage<

Speaking as a Brit I don't like the idea that I could be discussing something which is perfectly legal in my country but then get rapped by the mods because it's illegal in the US (eg getting drunk on my twentieth birthday).

For this rule, much of how it's going to be policed is handled by U.S. law primarily, and by age limits secondarily. For example, citing anecdotally that you've had alcohol prior to turning 21 generally isn't a problem. Not only does this vary legally from state to state within the United States, there's a great deal of variance with other countries. There's too much uncertainty and variance in this to effectively police what people can or can't say about local laws or behaviors.

This rule is largely about intent. The difference between relevant information on narcotics in a discussion about police behavior, for instance, is very different than a thread started to encourage someone who's 13 years of age to disregard the law and drink as early/often as possible.

If you feel your intent is to skirt U.S. law, then the post will probably be wrathed. If its a discussion where the illegal act is relevant to the topic, then tone will be the primary factor in what is or isn't okay. "Police should be doing more to prevent money laundering through the country for Mexican drug cartels" is generally okay, but "Drug cartels are in the right to play fast and loose with the laws, down with the man!" isn't ever going to be.

Ok, I see what you're driving at. Cheers for the clarification.