Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[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.

 

[Spade Lead]

Been banned before, if it happens again, then I will just stop coming here like I have the others. I didn't read the rules, because I KNOW how to behave. Look at my join date, how many rules changes do you think I have seen? And I was lurking long before I posted.

 

[scyther250]

The health bar thing seems a bit harsh, I agree. There should be some sort of expiration date on them.

Edit: well, now that I read it, there is an expiration date. 2 years is an awfully long time, though.

 

[Trolldor]

The health bar thing seems a bit harsh, I agree. There should be some sort of expiration date on them.

Edit: well, now that I read it, there is an expiration date. 2 years is an awfully long time, though.

That's not an expiration date at all.

An expiration on mod sanctions would have them removed a certian amount of time after issue. This is not the case. Instead it's a point system where you get given points after six months.

 

[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?

 

[Rayne870]

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'm not to happy about it either I really do try not to be a jerk and try to filter a lot of things, but I'm at two strikes that I cant get back, and I'm guessing in the rest of the year I'll probably say something mild and getting more infractions.

I think there should at least be an annual wiping of warning or something for people whom are not toxic to the community but just make mistakes. A little forgiveness would be nice.

Edit: Just read this

"Amnesty
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.

These adjustments don't apply to any users that have been permanently banned, and they don't remove the history that the moderators can see on your account. Anyone that is seen "gaming the system" will be held accountable for it. "

I guess that kind of works.

 

[scyther250]

The health bar thing seems a bit harsh, I agree. There should be some sort of expiration date on them.

Edit: well, now that I read it, there is an expiration date. 2 years is an awfully long time, though.

That's not an expiration date at all.

An expiration on mod sanctions would have them removed a certian amount of time after issue. This is not the case. Instead it's a point system where you get given points after six months.

That's true. It's a pretty silly system, overall. And the fact that they'll crack down on those "gaming the system" is wholly laughable. By their rules, you can troll once every six months. How will they know if you're gaming the system or simply an infrequent troller? If I remember, I might try get a warning on New Year's Day and another in July some time, just to see what happens, but that'd likely be too much effort.

It's a bad system, anyway. Forums don't need "health bars", just regular bans and warnings.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Inspecting the rules....

Yeah that's fair. They have the amnesty thingo there so you can just chill for a year and be good with it. As long as they don't go throwing out warnings like they're on fire i don't see a problem.

 

[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.

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.

 

[blankedboy]

I think it's a bit harsh but whatever. I'm cool with it.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Let's see...

...they're fine. Bit sad about the "perverted remarks" thing... I think. I guess there's a difference between "sexually open" and "perverted," though as much as I'd love to test that theory, I guess I'll try to keep my stuff PG-rated where possible!

We can still swear, right? Fuck tits shit mittens?

 

[mageroel]

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.

 

[gbemery]

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.