Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
The bad eggs are weeded out quickly because it's painfully obvious that their only intention is to start shit. Hell, they would probably be banned faster under the old rules. This new system will result in a more tense posting environment and only assures that quality posters will be lost down the road.Trolldor said:
Pedophiles are people too, you know. It is actually akin to saying the same thing about homosexuals.powell86 said:
They seem pretty reasonable, but I agree that there should be some way of getting back your "forum health".
I'm either blind or ignorant.Julianking93 said:
If the answer to the latter half of your post is sitting right in front of my face, I don't see it.
[small]I received a warning in this thread for merely making a small joke, so I'm a bit afraid to say much more for fear of mod wrath.[/small]
I pretty much agree with everyone saying the 1-way forum health bar is a bit heavy handed, but I'm more upset that the rules didn't function in this manner previously and those of us that occurred infractions in the past are now punished by it.
If you want to change the rules that's fine, but to not offer full amnesty to those who gained infractions under a different system of law seems completely unfair.
If you want to change the rules that's fine, but to not offer full amnesty to those who gained infractions under a different system of law seems completely unfair.
HG131 said:
Erm... yes granted i agree that there are normal adults who are sexually attracted to children but are decent human beings who do not prey on children. pedophiles =/= definite child molesters.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
However, the general public consensus:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Paedophiles (check the thesaurus)
http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=catch+a+paedophile&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-aThis to me is leaning towards political correctness gone wrong.
Shouldn't benefit of the doubt be given to him considering that most people do mean pedophiles = sexual predators? I honestly question how many so called "decent pedophiles" are hurt by his statement on this site? Alternatively, what are the chances of a pedophile advocacy group suing Escapist forum for allowing such "misguided" use of the word to take place? Next thing I noe we cannot use the word fag or ****** as part of a sentence anymore becuz homosexuals will be upset even though there are colloquial usages of such terms in our day to day conversation. And even when that happens, I'll feel less aggravated as LGBT groups ARE getting more and more mainstream and gaining in numbers.
Nope. Pedophilia is an attraction, not an action. Also, most child sexual abuse crimes aren't committed by pedophiles.powell86 said:
If I wanted to be on a web forum where mods actively go on witch hunts, I'd pay the $10 to sign up for Something Awful.
Nearly every objection I'm hearing about this neutering debate on the forums or this being 'teh worst ruels evar' I've saw last time they changed the rules. Nothing really changed last time. I doubt there will be another major shift in moderation. The only major difference now is that we have a FHM/FHB. All that means is that if you've had an infraction in the past, everyone can see it and is aware of it. I think it could become a very effective way of point out who on the forum is just trying to get a rise out of you when they argue.
In all fairness though, all the comments about 'not being a jerk' ruining debate are pretty baseless when you look at how this was handled last time. I mean, I've gone into arguments and been a moderate jerkass about my points, but presented them in a polite way. Doing so, I've never gotten an infraction. If you really are tied to being a jerkass and presenting your jerkassedness to the world it the rudest way possible, then you should expect moderation.
I have no problem with the system. It's not a big yay, or nay for me. It's a big moving on.
Edit: Also, the Escapist represents the old school. The only people that need regenerating health are the ones that can't handle the intensity of fixed health.
In all fairness though, all the comments about 'not being a jerk' ruining debate are pretty baseless when you look at how this was handled last time. I mean, I've gone into arguments and been a moderate jerkass about my points, but presented them in a polite way. Doing so, I've never gotten an infraction. If you really are tied to being a jerkass and presenting your jerkassedness to the world it the rudest way possible, then you should expect moderation.
I have no problem with the system. It's not a big yay, or nay for me. It's a big moving on.
Edit: Also, the Escapist represents the old school. The only people that need regenerating health are the ones that can't handle the intensity of fixed health.
Similarly, posts including, advocating , or linking to illegal or adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community. An example of these are:
Piracy
Ad Blockers
Illegal Drugs in the United States
Illegal Acts in the United States
Pedophilia
Pornography
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks
I am uncomfortable with the use of advocating here. I can't advocate piracy, in any situation, not even playing games out of distribution, watching subversive films banned from theatres in your country, etc? Or ad blockers? If an ad is stopping some online game from loading, and an adblocker fixes it, if I mention the fix I get banned? I can't advocate marijuana use, even if I live in, say, the netherlands or somewhere else with a less harsh view on the drug, and have positive things to say abou it? I can;t start up a discussion on pedophilia? (Child molestation is not ok, but pedophiles are just people who have a mental disorder, that they don;t have to act on to be pedophiles. Pedophile does not equal child molestor, definately. its a square rectangle relationship.)(also, not a pedophiles. Pedophiles are wierd, I don't like them, But I respect their right to exist, and post on forums, and to try defend their sexuality)
Wait, how are ad blockers illegal or adult? thats fucking bullshit! I mean, I don't use adblockers because I want sites like the escapist to get revenue from me, but fuck banning advocacy of them.
the letter of the law is is very vague to. "Pornography" is a term which gets slung around a lot. one mans porn is another venus de milo. so I advocate what I think is a sexual work of art and get banned for promoting porn? (for example, I think IFM is a pretty arty take on female masturbation, but most people would probably classify it as porn.)
I dunno, the vague wording, the banning of advocating illegal activities, and the banning of ad blocker discussion even though they are neither adult nor illegal makes me uncomfortable.
Piracy
Ad Blockers
Illegal Drugs in the United States
Illegal Acts in the United States
Pedophilia
Pornography
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks
I am uncomfortable with the use of advocating here. I can't advocate piracy, in any situation, not even playing games out of distribution, watching subversive films banned from theatres in your country, etc? Or ad blockers? If an ad is stopping some online game from loading, and an adblocker fixes it, if I mention the fix I get banned? I can't advocate marijuana use, even if I live in, say, the netherlands or somewhere else with a less harsh view on the drug, and have positive things to say abou it? I can;t start up a discussion on pedophilia? (Child molestation is not ok, but pedophiles are just people who have a mental disorder, that they don;t have to act on to be pedophiles. Pedophile does not equal child molestor, definately. its a square rectangle relationship.)(also, not a pedophiles. Pedophiles are wierd, I don't like them, But I respect their right to exist, and post on forums, and to try defend their sexuality)
Wait, how are ad blockers illegal or adult? thats fucking bullshit! I mean, I don't use adblockers because I want sites like the escapist to get revenue from me, but fuck banning advocacy of them.
the letter of the law is is very vague to. "Pornography" is a term which gets slung around a lot. one mans porn is another venus de milo. so I advocate what I think is a sexual work of art and get banned for promoting porn? (for example, I think IFM is a pretty arty take on female masturbation, but most people would probably classify it as porn.)
I dunno, the vague wording, the banning of advocating illegal activities, and the banning of ad blocker discussion even though they are neither adult nor illegal makes me uncomfortable.