Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[subtlefuge]

All right, THE new rules. And if by "fun" you mean 1984 style moderation, then by all means, this is the best website on Earth.

It's not 1984.

There's a sweet spot somewhere between /b/ and Something Awful, and that's what these rules are.

I mean, you can't be banned for being a Libertarian here.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Oh, oh damn. I made a monumental boo-boo here. The fact that Spinwhiz got suspended kind of made me forget that he was a mod. I figured he was just a member of the site saying something that some people could consider controversial. Yeah, if he's banning people for something he's not fully educated on/he just doesn't like for his own reasons, something needs to be done about that.

Yeah, I do believe that Kulani, the former head mod, overturned Legendary's ban. Now that he is gone though....

Wait, wait, wait...Kuliani's gone?! When did this happen?! Wow, I must really not pay attention to what goes on here.

Then again, I guess ignorance is bliss, so...

*goes back to playing DDO*

 

[ace_of_something]

They're new? they seemed exactly the same to me. I guess I don't worry about it because I don't say things on the internet I wouldn't say to your face.

You know, I get that a lot. "You wouldn't say that bullshit if you were standing in front of me instead of safe behind a computer", and it bothers me because I wouldn't say anything here that I wouldn't say to someones FACE. I don't go out of my way to be insulting or inflamitory, but when someone does a stupid thing, you should tell them it's a stupid thing.

Seems like common sense to me, but apparently I'm alone.

That is why you attempt to use tact. If you say "Hey that thing you said was stupid, stupid!" that's being a jerk. If you say "That doesn't make sense here's why" that is calling someone out without being inflammatory.
I'm not sure if you personally use tact but most people I know who claim "I will tell them how it is" in person tend to have, no tact, or are blunt hurtful butthead.

 

[Virgil]

This has been pointed out and beaten to death, but I feel it's important to reiterate that nothing has actually changed. ... The only change being made is that now ordinary people can see it, which is how it always should have been. The idea of an invisible scoreboard I can't see which counts every perceived infraction and which I can never erase by my good deeds is absurd. A visible one is slightly less so. At least this way it's more honest.

That's exactly the reasoning behind making it public. There has historically been confusion as to why one person was banned for something that another person "got away with", when ban history is always the reason. Now there shouldn't be confusion.

By the way, while "good deeds" are not taken into account directly, they certainly are taken into account on appeals. Someone that is typically reasonable and polite will get a pass, while someone who is unapologetic won't.

i'm a bit ayn randy when it comes to these things;

If you're really Randian, then you'd have no problem with us setting whatever rules we chose, as the forums are our domain and as the owners we are free to set whatever guidelines we like. Anyone that doesn't like the rules, of course, is completely free to leave (and even set up their own forums, with their own rules). That's the purest form of capitalism.

Yeah, if he's banning people for something he's not fully educated on/he just doesn't like for his own reasons, something needs to be done about that.

Here's the deal: we don't want to "be educated". As a company, and a group of people, we have officially decided that we find it creepy, and we don't want it on our site. Spinwhiz, and the guidelines he has set up, are just the representation of that. You happen to disagree, and you're welcome to, but in the end it's not your feelings on the topic that matter here, it's ours. If you want to discuss it, I'm sure you can find some place on the internet that will welcome you, but it won't be on our forums.

If we get enough people, they will not be able to ignore us any longer.

Yes we could. The forums make up a minor portion of our traffic, and the users that actually cause problems make up a minor part of the forums. Even if your group managed to get every member that had ever received a warning, probation, or ban to sign up, which you won't, it would still not be enough people to make a difference.

Don't forget, we know what kind of people will have a problem under the new system and end up getting banned because of it. We expect those people to get banned. It's not something that we didn't already think about.

 

[pepitko]

I don't really mind the harsher forum rules, after all this site does a great job of promoting a reasonable discussion of all sorts of gaming related topics. These topics obviously generate all sorts of feedback, but people need to be respectful of opinions of others, in order for a civilized discussion to take place.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

I'll follow the precedent set by the video producers and articles.

If Jim from the Jimquisition can post lewd pictures why can't I?

If Yahtzee can "ironically" insult everyone so will I (stupid!)

And if MovieBob can perv on about ladies so will I.

I do agree that this will neuter all animated discussion. I would much prefer a "anything goes within reason" sub-forum where we can all have passionate and argumentative discussions.

I may be wrong and this will usher in 1000 years of peace between trolls and humans.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

If we get enough people, they will not be able to ignore us any longer.

Yes we could. The forums make up a minor portion of our traffic, and the users that actually cause problems make up a minor part of the forums. Even if your group managed to get every member that had ever received a warning, probation, or ban to sign up, which you won't, it would still not be enough people to make a difference.

Don't forget, we know what kind of people will have a problem under the new system and end up getting banned because of it. We expect those people to get banned. It's not something that we didn't already think about.

Well that sounds alot like we don't need you faithful forum goers of the escapist, our website can be successful on our own doesn't it?

Shouldn't you actually listen to your users opinions on this?

Although it seems in the last year or so the Escapist has started getting worse as its popularity has grown. Reminds me of TGWTG and Spoony Experiment.

To be honest to see that i'm permanently on probation is a bit ridiculous. You know probation is meant to have an end right?

 

[KnifeyMcStaberson]

this post made with 100% pre-recycled materials.

 

[Xanthious]

I still would like a public answer as to my inquiry about The Escapist staff and ad blockers. Are there members of the staff that use them or do you fellas abide by the guidelines you expect others to follow and either disable or remove them? I expect that a site that punishes people for even so much as admitting to using one would themselves not allow them on any company computer. Right? Or is this a case of telling members to do as you say not as you do?

And let's not kid ourselves this rule is against ad blockers not merely admitting to using them. If you could find a way to tell if they are being used or not and punish those that use them you would. A mod a ways back all but admitted as much.

Again, it would seem that if you feel that strongly as to think it's ok to punish folks for using something that comes standard on most browsers anymore then it would stand to reason the staff shows any website they visit the same courtesy as they expect theirs to be shown and browse them in the full glory of every pop up and layover ad and auto playing video they wish to throw at you.

I can respect strict rules when they are applied to everyone equally. What I don't have a stomach for is hypocrisy and double standards.

 

[DSK-]

I didn't even read the new rules.

 

[Art Axiv]

I decided to post just to see them.

EDIT: They are ok. No issues there.

 

[Trolldor]

If we get enough people, they will not be able to ignore us any longer.

Yes we could. The forums make up a minor portion of our traffic, and the users that actually cause problems make up a minor part of the forums. Even if your group managed to get every member that had ever received a warning, probation, or ban to sign up, which you won't, it would still not be enough people to make a difference.

Don't forget, we know what kind of people will have a problem under the new system and end up getting banned because of it. We expect those people to get banned. It's not something that we didn't already think about.

Well that sounds alot like we don't need you faithful forum goers of the escapist, our website can be successful on our own doesn't it?

Shouldn't you actually listen to your users opinions on this?

Although it seems in the last year or so the Escapist has started getting worse as its popularity has grown. Reminds me of TGWTG and Spoony Experiment.

To be honest to see that i'm permanently on probation is a bit ridiculous. You know probation is meant to have an end right?

You're surprised?
It's been this way for a long time. It's standard internet fare.
They create an aspect of the website centred around community interaction then implement a system which allows them to weed out undesireables.
Sounds alright, except for the fact that expulsions are issued towards people who are 'sufficiently rude', or 'sufficiently contrary'. Maybe you just have an unpopular opinion.
Maybe you caught a mod on a bad day.
And, of course, unless the mod decides to tell you, you won't even know the proper reasons for the decision meaning you have very limited knowledge for your appeal.

 

[itf cho]

I think some changes were necessary to the forum rules. I know when I first joined this site, last summer, that it almost seemed like being on probation was being treated as, well... not a badge of honor or anything; but there were so many "was put on probation for..." and links to the post, that the site almost seemed to celebrate the fact that someone was on probation.

I recall actually contacting the forum mods asking about this. And they did do a great job explaining the theory behind it. I guess we'll wait and see how these new rules work out.

And, by what I read, it seems that posting a link to an ad blocker is not allowed, but it doesn't say you can't use one. Of course, the rules are specifically covering forums posts, so maybe there is another rule set somewhere stating that you can't use an ad blocker.

 

[Mumonk]

Checking

EDIT: Seems fine to me.

 

[Hollock]

It makes me nervous to see that I can only make a few are low posts, but apart from that it's fine. Of the 3400 posts I've made it seems like 5 have been low content.

 

[Virgil]

I still would like a public answer as to my inquiry about The Escapist staff and ad blockers.

None of the staff use ad blockers, at least not at our office. I obviously can't vouch for all their home computers, but there aren't any on the computers in my house.

We are a company that is supported by ads. People that use ad blockers are directly hurting our site. If everyone ran an ad blocker, we wouldn't have jobs. Which is why anyone that admits to using them, or encourages others to, gets banned. This is not a new rule, this has always been the policy.

If you could find a way to tell if they are being used or not and punish those that use them you would.

I unquestionably would.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Does this mean that mods will have to fully explain justifications for any action issued for a member's apparent trolling?
And if an appeal is successful, can the mod recieve a warning for a false accusation?

I will give you credit for taking into account the moderation team's humanity. By and large, we're all regular forum-goers who've been around enough and have been made mods. It means most know the lay of the land, and what is and isn't kosher on the forums.

While that means mods in general know their way around, every mod's going to have some oversight in one section of another, which is what the appeal system is for. Failing that, the user is always welcome to PM Spinwhiz or contact someone staff-side on the IRC. Despite people saying "The Appeal system doesn't work. Ever." I know it does. For anyone who doubts that, look at the retired mod Ultrajoe. He was once permanently banned, then he was back, then he was a mod. Now he's back to posting regularly. That should be proof enough that you can successfully appeal even the most permanent moderator action.

As for the receiving a warning, I'm fairly certain mods don't get warnings. If we screw up enough, we're out.


But the whole purpose of "accusations of trolling," I'd like to think that rule stems back to flame-baiting. In calling someone "just a troll" (or some such), it's creating an argument in a thread. If that argument sparks (which it commonly will), a thread will be derailed, discussion stifled, and two users at the other's throat. Which both allude to "put effort into your communication" and "have respect for others" rules.

In any case, I can assure you mods are held accountable for the things they do, and anyone can appeal any decision given enough rational.

Also, just as a general tip for anyone who feels like they're being harassed, by mod or otherwise:

Keep the offending PMs, take screenshots of any abuse, keep copies and records - timestamps too if possible - and combine these elements when you're handing in a report. He said/she said arguments generally fall pretty flat, but good records leave a clear indicator of what happens when. Even if you feel like you're being unfairly treated by a mod, saving your system messages could give the appeals board a better idea of what is going wrong, and on whose end.

Hopefully that's helped. If anyone ever has any moderation questions, never hesitate to PM the mods. We're almost always available. I know I am.

Warmest regards,
Nuke

 

[Viking Incognito]

So, there´s been an update to the rules. If you haven´t seen it, it´ll come up when you try to post.

So anyway, what does the Escapist think of this new set of rules? Yay? Nay? Don´t care?!

Personally, i think the rules are just as good as usual, but the whole forum health meter thing sounds a little unfair. I mean, you can NEVER get strikes back? That sounds kinda impractical.

Let´s be hypothetical here: Let´s say a poster reaches the last zone before a ban, but decides he/she doesn´t like to be banned and stops acting like a twat. 9 months pass with plenty of posts and not a single infraction, but then, this poster makes one post that could be classified as offensive/jerkish etc. And they´re banned. I dunno. Just doesn´t sound fair to me.

I voted "Some yay". If they got rid of the "Forum health meter" i´d be good. I don´t think infractions should be measured in this way.

I completely agree. It really doesn't seem fair. I mean seriously, even if someone were to clean up their act, go for years being completely perfect and becoming very popular, then they still get banned forever if they make one more mistake! That is just wrong.

 

[itf cho]

I do think it would be nice if warnings would expire after a set time. I've got one... and I think it's from right after I joined, and foolishly didn't read the forum posts, and consequently my first post ever earned me a warning for a low-content post.

Though I can understand why they chose to have warnings not expire. Some people will always try to game the system.

 

[subtlefuge]

So, there´s been an update to the rules. If you haven´t seen it, it´ll come up when you try to post.

So anyway, what does the Escapist think of this new set of rules? Yay? Nay? Don´t care?!

Personally, i think the rules are just as good as usual, but the whole forum health meter thing sounds a little unfair. I mean, you can NEVER get strikes back? That sounds kinda impractical.

Let´s be hypothetical here: Let´s say a poster reaches the last zone before a ban, but decides he/she doesn´t like to be banned and stops acting like a twat. 9 months pass with plenty of posts and not a single infraction, but then, this poster makes one post that could be classified as offensive/jerkish etc. And they´re banned. I dunno. Just doesn´t sound fair to me.

I voted "Some yay". If they got rid of the "Forum health meter" i´d be good. I don´t think infractions should be measured in this way.

I completely agree. It really doesn't seem fair. I mean seriously, even if someone were to clean up their act, go for years being completely perfect and becoming very popular, then they still get banned forever if they make one more mistake! That is just wrong.

I would agree, but the fact is that it's not hard to avoid making one mistake. I've made one mistake total, and since then I've been very careful to follow all the rules. It's really as simple as that.