Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[jml spells jumle]

Why did I get a warning for this? I was agreeing with them instead of posting the same thing.

Please read the rules [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct]. Particularly the part about "Low Content Posts". A reason is, also, always included in the warning/probation/suspension, so you can refer to that.

But I was going to post the same thing anyway, just word it differently. I could have posted it, but there would be no point, someone else posted it and I was agreeing.

 

[Caliostro]

But I was going to post the same thing anyway, just word it differently. I could have posted it, but there would be no point, someone else posted it and I was agreeing.

If someone else already said it, and you have nothing else to add, why say anything at all then? If you're elaborating on what's already said, then go ahead. If you're just parroting someone else then it's just noise. They've said it already.

 

[jml spells jumle]

But I was going to post the same thing anyway, just word it differently. I could have posted it, but there would be no point, someone else posted it and I was agreeing.

If someone else already said it, and you have nothing else to add, why say anything at all then? If you're elaborating on what's already said, then go ahead. If you're just parroting someone else then it's just noise. They've said it already.

I'm meant to state my opinion on it though, aren't I?

 

[MetalGenocide]

The new rules seem a bit too severe.

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

I, for one, welcome our new mod overlords.

*braces for impact*

 

[Dasrufken]

didnt even notice the rule change.


Now that I have I can easily say meh, except for the part about offensive posts since anything can be offensive towards anyone...

 

[Caliostro]

I'm meant to state my opinion on it though, aren't I?

But it's not your opinion. It's someone else's opinion word for word. Besides, you're meant to discuss the topic, which you necessarily need to do with your opinion, but if you're not gonna add anything to the topic, then, as I mentioned before, posting just to say anything is rather pointless no? You're not adding anything.

"Stating your opinion" is a mean, not an end.

If you want to understand why the rule is in place, imagine trying to have a conversation with a friend, each of surrounded by a few hundreds or thousands of people, and everytime one of you says something, people start replying with stuff like "yeah", "I agree", "what he said" at random intervals. You'll soon realize that any conversation like that is impossible. The "noise to signal" ratio becomes absurd.

Hope that cleared it up.

 

[Gardenia]

Some rules I don't like, some I do.

Checked my profile:
"Forum Health
You have a clean record. Excellent job, citizen!"

Indeed. Vault City prevails!

 

[monkey_man]

I haven't been warned or something, so I'm good. It's not really important to me, since I am a law-abiding citizen engineerperson already.

 

[Caliostro]

That's an exaggeration of something that plainly isn't happening. It is perfectly acceptable, and routine, in a conversation to simply say "I agree", or chuckle (the web version would be an emote or LOL) or any number of things. Suggesting that every line of every conversation needs meaningful, insightful input is ridiculous. Do you, in the course of your day, have this occur in real life 365 days of the year, with everyone you speak with?

Why then is this surreality extended here and enforced with such punitive rigidity? Giving someone a warning (which could grow to probation and a ban) for doing something similar in a conversation really is over-reaching sensibility.

Your logic is flawed. Its simply an exercise to justify the absurd.

And yet it's the rules.

There are a myriad of differences between written and oral communication, here are even more differences once you consider context, which guarantee that both types of communication can not be held under the same standards. In a normal conversation with your friends, for once, it would be rather unacceptable, or at least impolite and confusing, to reply to someone 6 hours later without a word in between, amongst other things.

The purpose of these forums is to debate and share ideas and topics. It's meant for constructive and meaningful discussions. Spam, inane posts, or posts with no content have no place here. They're detrimental to thoughtful discussions and just serve to add noise. If you don't like that we apologize but that's the way it is. Nobody is forcing you to use these forums, but if you do, you have to follow the rules.

 

[Trolldor]

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.

So what?
If they don't define their rules how are we supposed to abide by them?
They've already stated that some illegal activities can be advocated, so how do we know which activities are illegal enough to avoid advocating?

By using your head. I thinks its very clear what is meant by "illegal" in the context of what is and is not appropriate forum posts. They should not have to spell out every possible violation of that rule, most self respecting posters know exactly what it means.

I guess some posters won't, but if a post is going to cross that line I am willing to bet it deserved to get moderated. Meaning the posts saying "I pirated X game" are going to get strikes against them and silly stuff like differing road rules are gonna get overlooked.

If a few people learn the lesson the hard way, so be it.

So is advocating "hate speech" too illegal to advocate? Drug use?
White collar crime? Tax Avoidance?
Drink Driving?

There are a lot of laws to go through.


Edit: Also, once again, what Jurisdiction are we referring to?

 

[Trolldor]

I have just read the entire set of rules, and indeed it seems a bit harsh for the perma-probation thing. I noticed something at the end though:

"After every 6 months without any warnings, you will drop down one level on the Forum Health Meter. After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before."

Seems like there IS a way to "drop down one level", meaning probation will possibly last 6 months, and not indefinitely.

hmm either i didn't read that part or they added it in after. but now that i see that I really don't have an issue anymore. I have been here for over a year and only got one warning for a low content post...and oddly enough still have that warning against me for some odd reason meh.

EDIT- though I still don't like the idea to a certain extent because mods are different from each other in what they find "breaks" the rules etc. what one might let slide another might warn like crazy for. Plus what if the mod is having a bad day or week? The appeals process is crap in my opinion because when i tried to appeal the warning I got I never received any reply.

*EDIT*
I just had to agree to the rules again... I haven't posted in a while, maybe it's an outdated version? Or alternatively, it is the right page but I have to agree again to make sure I read them or something?

I think that's because they started counting from this moment, or at least the moment you agreed to these rules. Though it seems strange that these rules are retro-active... Imagine banning, say, threads about Halo being better than (x=genericgame), and then retro-actively banning each and every starter of those threads.

Also, there will always, and I mean ALWAYS, be a human factor to this. Human factor also means human mood. But, seeing as being made a mod isn't done without reason and to anyone, I think it's safe to say those who are chosen are usually professional enough not to let their mood get to them.

Nonsense.
It most definitely will affect them.
Basic psychology. Unless they're psycopathic, their emotions will affect how they behave, how they act. Their personal bias will affect how they view reports. Their fallability will affect their judgement.

 

[T8B95]

What was wrong with the old rules? I liked them well enough!

The one that I`m going to ***** about hardest is the "not calling out trolls." That`s half the fun of an online forum! And why can`t I ***** at people flaming me?

 

[deshorty]

In my opinion, this doesn't really affect much, aside from letting people off the hook after a certain amount of time. Aside from that it is essentially the same as before as far as I can tell.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I do have to say now with the perma-forum health meter, and chances are I'll probably get banned eventually due to some of the things I've got probation for (like someone trolling me), I sure as hell am never going to give a cent to their publishers club now. I can understand getting banned, but if I'm paying for something, then get banned and can no longer use it, what's the point?

 

[Elfangorax]

It lists ad blockers as one of the "illegal or adult material" not to be advocated. Seriously? I realise it's not in the Escapist's interests for people to advocate ad blocking software, but illegal?

 

[Trolldor]

I wonder, how does the escapist feel about script blockers?

 

[JDKJ]

Did an Escapist contributor just imply I am a "jackass" or "douchebag?" MODS! He slandered me; please ban his ass forever!

Good luck trying to spin that little yarn. I wasn't aware that you were making this something personal--which, by the way, is usually the fastest way to draw mod wrath, if you're keeping score here.

You seem to think people should be allowed to act like jackasses and douchebags (which are really the only behaviors that get modded besides clear policy violations), because otherwise forums are not "fun." I've simply countered with equal-but-opposite reasoning: to me, if I can't come here to get away from people acting like that, the forums are not "fun."

Historically, I've found that there are more people out there who want to avoid that sort of behavior than there are people that need to exhibit that sort of behavior. Clearly, the folks tasked with moderating this forum found the same thing. That's why the rules favor those who feel there's more "fun" in not having to put up with that crap.

I think casting the issue as one of "fun" misplaces the emphasis. The emphasis more correctly belongs on "robust discourse."

What good is a forum if users are afraid to freely voice an opinion? And I think you'll admit that some of the forum rules and the way they have been applied (you need only look within this thread for examples) do have a tendency to chill robust discourse. Granted, at the other end of the spectrum lies the forum that dissolves into pure anarchistic babble for want of moderation but I can't help but to wonder if in striking the balance between the two extremes, you guys haven't leaned closer to chilling the discourse in favor of imposing some order upon the proceedings.

And the line between a response personal in nature and one that isn't is not a very bright or clear line. For example, if I stated in response to a post, "That is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard come out of a mouth that didn't belong to a four-legged barnyard animal," is that "personal?" Is it '"offensive." I don't know for sure. And I'm willing to bet that plenty of the mods here wouldn't know for sure, either. But I suspect that the uncertainty is no guarantee that censure won't be imposed.

Or, as another example, what is a "low content" post (a rule for which it appears that violations are being prosecuted with increasing frequency)? That term isn't defined. Is it less than 10 characters? Twenty? Forty? Who knows? Moreover, what is the actual effect of a low content post to the discourse? Is it detrimental enough to warrant censure? Yes, it may not add much to the discourse, but is it, at the same time, taking much away?

Or, as yet another example, what is a "slanderous" statement of fact? If I am genuinely and without fault of my own mistaken as to the falsity of the statement, have I still slandered someone? If held to a purely legal standard, I wouldn't be unless I've recklessly disregard the truth of the matter. Are moderators equipped to make those sorts of quasi-judicial determinations?

But I guess the final word on the matter is that it is the owner's lemonade stand and they are free to manage it in any way they choose. Regardless of whether or not that management actually inures to their benefit.

 

[SniperMacFox]

There's rules for these forums?

(I kid I kid please no banhammer nice moderators nice nice moderators.)

 

[JDKJ]

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

I've always thought the mods here have been overzealous, to be nice, (lest they prove my point) but this is a tad ridiculous.

I somewhat find it ironic that Zero punctuation is what brought me here and is happily hosted here, but under any other name a "Zero punctuation"-esque post would get you banned for not treating others like fwuffy wittle kittens.

Where are you getting that 2 years thing from? According to the rules as I read them, once you're on probation, you're always on probation. Doesn't matter if you leave and come back 10 years later, you'll still be on probation.

EDIT: Never mind. I'm seeing the "amnesty" thing.