Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[Daedalus1942]

I always find it amazing how many people really misunderstand their 'right' to free speech. So many people seem to think it means they can chat about anything they like, anywhere. And that's simply not true. Even when you're a publicly held venue, there are limitations on how and what you are allowed to discuss. If you don't believe that, I suggest looking up the legal concepts "hate speech" and/or "fighting words".

When you're using The Escapist's forums - something that they own - they have the right to dictate what is acceptable and non-acceptable topics of discussion. And as Virgil stated, if you're in disagreement with that, they invite you to go elsewhere.

And frankly, I'm aghast that somehow pedophilia became of the "Cause célèbre" of some of the people disagreeing with the new rules. Out of all the things you could have possibly chosen as the basis for your arguments, you went with that. I think you'd have had better luck trying to convince the moderation staff that the "using large amounts of ... and CAPS is against our policies" rule is arbitrary. Even though fairly universally disliked in chat channel and forums, the general prohibition of it is based upon the perception that it's considered shouting and therefore ill-mannered; and I suppose an argument could be made that that isn't a universal perception. However, it's still the forum owners right to tell you not to go nuts with the caps; just as they have the right to tell you what you aren't allowed to discuss here.

Unfortunately, whenever rules are modified, the 'rules lawyers' come out of the woodwork to pick apart every line. Perhaps the thing to remember here is that the forum rules are not a legally binding contract, and you should focus more on the intent and spirit of the rules, and not dissect each sentence for possible loopholes.

Personally, it's because they're human beings too, and it's kinda suspicious. There was a user banned for it.

Two were actually. Always found it funny that no one seemed to care about this guy but started a whole crusade for Legandarygamer0

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.199062-So-you-discover-that-your-girlfriend-is-transgendered?page=2#6504165

I was never actually aware of that person being banned.
Now that you've brought it to my attention, I think I shall PM "Whiz" and try to appeal for him. Any way of getting in contact with said banned person?
-Tabs<3-

 

[Daedalus1942]

I always find it amazing how many people really misunderstand their 'right' to free speech. So many people seem to think it means they can chat about anything they like, anywhere. And that's simply not true. Even when you're a publicly held venue, there are limitations on how and what you are allowed to discuss. If you don't believe that, I suggest looking up the legal concepts "hate speech" and/or "fighting words".

When you're using The Escapist's forums - something that they own - they have the right to dictate what is acceptable and non-acceptable topics of discussion. And as Virgil stated, if you're in disagreement with that, they invite you to go elsewhere.

And frankly, I'm aghast that somehow pedophilia became of the "Cause célèbre" of some of the people disagreeing with the new rules. Out of all the things you could have possibly chosen as the basis for your arguments, you went with that. I think you'd have had better luck trying to convince the moderation staff that the "using large amounts of ... and CAPS is against our policies" rule is arbitrary. Even though fairly universally disliked in chat channel and forums, the general prohibition of it is based upon the perception that it's considered shouting and therefore ill-mannered; and I suppose an argument could be made that that isn't a universal perception. However, it's still the forum owners right to tell you not to go nuts with the caps; just as they have the right to tell you what you aren't allowed to discuss here.

Unfortunately, whenever rules are modified, the 'rules lawyers' come out of the woodwork to pick apart every line. Perhaps the thing to remember here is that the forum rules are not a legally binding contract, and you should focus more on the intent and spirit of the rules, and not dissect each sentence for possible loopholes.

Personally, it's because they're human beings too, and it's kinda suspicious. There was a user banned for it.

Two were actually. Always found it funny that no one seemed to care about this guy but started a whole crusade for Legandarygamer0

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.199062-So-you-discover-that-your-girlfriend-is-transgendered?page=2#6504165

I was never actually aware of that person being banned.
Now that you've brought it to my attention, I think I shall PM "Whiz" and try to appeal for him. Any way of getting in contact with said banned person?
-Tabs<3-

Not to my knowledge. Seems pointless to try for an appeal since he hasn?t logged on for almost a year even if you do manage it I doubt he?ll come back.

Darn... I don't feel any less bad though.
I feel even worse that he got banned in a trans thread.
-Tabs<3-

 

[Leg End]

I always find it amazing how many people really misunderstand their 'right' to free speech. So many people seem to think it means they can chat about anything they like, anywhere. And that's simply not true. Even when you're a publicly held venue, there are limitations on how and what you are allowed to discuss. If you don't believe that, I suggest looking up the legal concepts "hate speech" and/or "fighting words".

When you're using The Escapist's forums - something that they own - they have the right to dictate what is acceptable and non-acceptable topics of discussion. And as Virgil stated, if you're in disagreement with that, they invite you to go elsewhere.

And frankly, I'm aghast that somehow pedophilia became of the "Cause célèbre" of some of the people disagreeing with the new rules. Out of all the things you could have possibly chosen as the basis for your arguments, you went with that. I think you'd have had better luck trying to convince the moderation staff that the "using large amounts of ... and CAPS is against our policies" rule is arbitrary. Even though fairly universally disliked in chat channel and forums, the general prohibition of it is based upon the perception that it's considered shouting and therefore ill-mannered; and I suppose an argument could be made that that isn't a universal perception. However, it's still the forum owners right to tell you not to go nuts with the caps; just as they have the right to tell you what you aren't allowed to discuss here.

Unfortunately, whenever rules are modified, the 'rules lawyers' come out of the woodwork to pick apart every line. Perhaps the thing to remember here is that the forum rules are not a legally binding contract, and you should focus more on the intent and spirit of the rules, and not dissect each sentence for possible loopholes.

Personally, it's because they're human beings too, and it's kinda suspicious. There was a user banned for it.

Two were actually. Always found it funny that no one seemed to care about this guy but started a whole crusade for Legandarygamer0

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.199062-So-you-discover-that-your-girlfriend-is-transgendered?page=2#6504165

Now I feel bad.

How come?

An innocent person got in trouble for doing nothing wrong and we did nothing for him.

Actually, he allegedly had a laundry list of infractions, and may have just been banned for saying being gay is a mental defect.

The world may never know. >.>

 

[Leg End]

I always find it amazing how many people really misunderstand their 'right' to free speech. So many people seem to think it means they can chat about anything they like, anywhere. And that's simply not true. Even when you're a publicly held venue, there are limitations on how and what you are allowed to discuss. If you don't believe that, I suggest looking up the legal concepts "hate speech" and/or "fighting words".

When you're using The Escapist's forums - something that they own - they have the right to dictate what is acceptable and non-acceptable topics of discussion. And as Virgil stated, if you're in disagreement with that, they invite you to go elsewhere.

And frankly, I'm aghast that somehow pedophilia became of the "Cause célèbre" of some of the people disagreeing with the new rules. Out of all the things you could have possibly chosen as the basis for your arguments, you went with that. I think you'd have had better luck trying to convince the moderation staff that the "using large amounts of ... and CAPS is against our policies" rule is arbitrary. Even though fairly universally disliked in chat channel and forums, the general prohibition of it is based upon the perception that it's considered shouting and therefore ill-mannered; and I suppose an argument could be made that that isn't a universal perception. However, it's still the forum owners right to tell you not to go nuts with the caps; just as they have the right to tell you what you aren't allowed to discuss here.

Unfortunately, whenever rules are modified, the 'rules lawyers' come out of the woodwork to pick apart every line. Perhaps the thing to remember here is that the forum rules are not a legally binding contract, and you should focus more on the intent and spirit of the rules, and not dissect each sentence for possible loopholes.

Personally, it's because they're human beings too, and it's kinda suspicious. There was a user banned for it.

Two were actually. Always found it funny that no one seemed to care about this guy but started a whole crusade for Legandarygamer0

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.199062-So-you-discover-that-your-girlfriend-is-transgendered?page=2#6504165

Now I feel bad.

How come?

An innocent person got in trouble for doing nothing wrong and we did nothing for him.

Actually, he allegedly had a laundry list of infractions, and may have just been banned for saying being gay is a mental defect.

The world may never know. >.>

Allegedly? Well, I asked Spin about it.

I asked two other mods about it. :L

 

[iebilish]

If there was some form of cool down on the health bar thing then it looks ok.

Like each month of no posts that get reported one strike is taken away, so there is some chance of redemption.

And after re-reading the new rules its there but at 6 months for a strike off and 2 years for a full restore.

 

[marurder]

I do not think this will work, it seems to copy the law enforcement system to a degree. I think it is worth a trial. But nothing good will come of it in the long term.

 

[Trolldor]

'Advocating illegal acts' is far too ambiguous.

What jurisdiction are we talking about and what acts are illegal?
Without context we default only to our own knowledge. If I live in an area where Marijuana is legal can I get banned for talking about it positively?
And why is advocating illegal?
Can I argue that a specific law should be overturned?
What if someone starts a thread criticising an 'illegal act', do I have a right of reply if I think it should be defended?
What about matters of hate speech? What if I advocate somebody's right to have an opinion that is deemed 'against the law'?

 

[Trolldor]

I do not think this will work, it seems to copy the law enforcement system to a degree. I think it is worth a trial. But nothing good will come of it in the long term.

It's not even remotely reflective of a first-world judicial system.

For one there's no right to face your accuser, you aren't given the full details of why an act was taken place, and you are assumed guilty and the sentence handed down without a trial.

 

[Leg End]

I always find it amazing how many people really misunderstand their 'right' to free speech. So many people seem to think it means they can chat about anything they like, anywhere. And that's simply not true. Even when you're a publicly held venue, there are limitations on how and what you are allowed to discuss. If you don't believe that, I suggest looking up the legal concepts "hate speech" and/or "fighting words".

When you're using The Escapist's forums - something that they own - they have the right to dictate what is acceptable and non-acceptable topics of discussion. And as Virgil stated, if you're in disagreement with that, they invite you to go elsewhere.

And frankly, I'm aghast that somehow pedophilia became of the "Cause célèbre" of some of the people disagreeing with the new rules. Out of all the things you could have possibly chosen as the basis for your arguments, you went with that. I think you'd have had better luck trying to convince the moderation staff that the "using large amounts of ... and CAPS is against our policies" rule is arbitrary. Even though fairly universally disliked in chat channel and forums, the general prohibition of it is based upon the perception that it's considered shouting and therefore ill-mannered; and I suppose an argument could be made that that isn't a universal perception. However, it's still the forum owners right to tell you not to go nuts with the caps; just as they have the right to tell you what you aren't allowed to discuss here.

Unfortunately, whenever rules are modified, the 'rules lawyers' come out of the woodwork to pick apart every line. Perhaps the thing to remember here is that the forum rules are not a legally binding contract, and you should focus more on the intent and spirit of the rules, and not dissect each sentence for possible loopholes.

Personally, it's because they're human beings too, and it's kinda suspicious. There was a user banned for it.

Two were actually. Always found it funny that no one seemed to care about this guy but started a whole crusade for Legandarygamer0

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.199062-So-you-discover-that-your-girlfriend-is-transgendered?page=2#6504165

Now I feel bad.

How come?

An innocent person got in trouble for doing nothing wrong and we did nothing for him.

Actually, he allegedly had a laundry list of infractions, and may have just been banned for saying being gay is a mental defect.

The world may never know. >.>

Allegedly? Well, I asked Spin about it.

I asked two other mods about it. :L

Cool. Hopefully, they'll unban him. There's already a precedent for it... you.

Odds are slim as it appears the ban reason was not for stating he was a Pedophile. :L

Hence me asking them about it a while back, that is what they told me. :L

 

[ajofflight]

I haven't seen them yet, but let's find out!
Yeah, I think it all is (basically) similar to the rules that are on most of the other forums. Not too bad, I suppose.

 

[Trolldor]

Over 99% of the current posters don't have more than 2 warnings.

I keep seeing you throw this number out and I think it's rather misleading. How many of those 99% are actually active members with a reasonable number of posts under their belt? I'd wager a good percentage of those are people who scoot in make a single post, say for March Mayhem, and aren't seen again. I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of users with say more than 50 or 100 posts to their name have multiple warnings.

Surprisingly few, actually. When just browsing the forums, you'll find a lot of people who don't even have a warning to their name. And yes, I'm talking about active people within the forums with more than 100 posts.

You've made a claim without establishing it.
How many active members are there even on the escapist anyway?

 

[kaieth]

In my opinion the forum rules on the Escapist have always been a bit.... Draconian.

Nowhere else have I seen people get banned/probationed for so little. So it doesn't surprise me, but the whole mandated nice guy thing is kind of annoying. A completely supportive community engaging in rational debates/conversation is not a healthy one. Take the good with the bad, with genius comes deviancy.

 

[McNoobin]

It's kind of funny, I think a few of these rules were created because of that guy that had that discussion labeled "so tell me xbox fanboys..." and the actual discussion was about conflicting philosophical ideologies or something.

I feel indifferent about the new rules.

 

[ResonanceSD]

"Don't be a douchebag"

For other rules, refer to the first rule.


O_O' if i missed something important, and the Escapist is now on it's way to harvest my organs, please tell m- OH GOD, A HELICOPTER JUST ARRIVED.

 

[(sic) humor]

I'm pretty fascistic in my views on internet decorum.

YOU VILL REMAIN CIVIL OR BE SILENCED!!!

If I had any issue with a set of forum rules that started with "Don't be a douchebag", it would be that some posts could read as bitterly offensive or playfully tongue-in-cheek when taken out of context. I trust the moderators will be discerning over things like this, but I'd hate it if I had to retract a non-hurtful comment because it might be taken the wrong way.

That said, I'd be more than willing to comply if it meant fewer deliberately offensive comments. Moderation for the win.

 

[Friendshipandmagic]

I'm pretty fascistic in my views on internet decorum.

YOU VILL REMAIN CIVIL OR BE SILENCED!!!

I agree, stricter moderation grooms a better community. In my experience anyway.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I have a new concern (every time I think about these rules I think of a new concern.)

Advocating illegal activities.

According to whose legislation?

Can I advocate two sixteen year olds having sex because I'm British and thus the legal Age of Consent for me is and always has been sixteen? Even if 'illegal' is defined strictly as American Law, which American law? there are differences between state law that could actually have a big impact on a discussion.

A while ago I had an argument with someone over whether cyclists should be allowed on the roads, and as part of my counter agurment I used the British taxing system, which makes it illegal for a car to be on the road without road tax. However, since they were Canadian the argument was rendered moot because they have a different form of taxation. Neither of us were American, so whose definition of 'legal' should we have been following exactly?

There are other more serious examples of course, but someone could be making an argument for gun control based on a law which isn't shared across states, or on capital punishment, or any number of religious acceptance and equal opportunity laws which aren't shared, so in that case, whose law is better, and by saying that you take part in an activity which isn't illegal to you but is to the person you're debating with, which side will the moderators take?

This one should probably have occured to me when I first joined, but now I start to really look at the forum rules, there are holes everywhere.

 

[humor_involuntario]

Well, the new rules might be a little harsh, but they still don't make us getting a warning for speaking of a banned member, as in many other forums

 

[Kross]

However I still want to know why the staff and the moderators don't have their own health bar.

Cheat codes.

 

[Friendshipandmagic]

I have a new concern (every time I think about these rules I think of a new concern.)

Advocating illegal activities.

According to whose legislation?

I think exercising common sense would save a lot of pondering. I don't think the mods are gonna punish anyone for discussing where bicycles should be or weather or not you should own a gun.

Don't advocate piracy, don't advocate child pornography, don't encourage people to go out and murder their neighbors, ect. Easy enough, I think I could go on but you get the point.

Yes it is up to moderator discretion as to what is permissible to discuss, this is their site after all. You don't have freedom of speech on someone else's site, you have permission to post on it.