Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[Samurai Goomba]

Unfortunately, I would disagree. If you block a website's means to reasonably support its own costs and staff, you are pirating it. It really is as simple as that. If you then come on the forums and basically brag about how you are pirating it, and how everyone else should be doing it too, then you are insulting the staff. They should have every right to IP block and delete you off the face of the Earth. I think a warning is very kind and fair.

Yeah, because The Escapist's entire livelihood is entirely tied up in the adverts on the website. That must be why all the ads I can see right now are for the freaking ESCAPIST STORE, where they SELL PRODUCTS YOU CAN OWN. So you're telling me an overpriced $20 t-shirt with some ZP stuff on it doesn't make any money for them?

I sure wouldn't want to post in any forum you were running, since apparently your answer to a difference of opinion is an IP ban (in addition to gross exaggerations). Check out the Spoony Experiment forums, I think you'll like it there.

 

[Caliostro]

But are the rules as well-defined as you claim they are? Let's take, for example, the "picture rule" and ask ourselves if this is a "picture" as that word is used in the rule:

? . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-??. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:?. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .?~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ?~,_. . . ..?~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .?=,_. . . .?-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~?; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .?=-._. . .?;,,./`. . /? . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..?~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-?
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--
*deep sigh*

Arguably, it isn't. It doesn't involve image tags and is actually made up of textual characters. Is it the sort of low-content face-palm rot that both the "low content" and "picture" rules were intended to capture? Arguably, it is -- and if not, it ought to be. The point being that perhaps terms like "picture" aren't as well-defined in the rules as they could and ought to be. Which leaves their definition open to subjective ad hoc interpretation by both users and moderators.

We're arguing semantics.

That is low content and was/will be punished as such, and you know that.

 

[JDKJ]

But are the rules as well-defined as you claim they are? Let's take, for example, the "picture rule" and ask ourselves if this is a "picture" as that word is used in the rule:

? . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-??. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:?. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .?~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ?~,_. . . ..?~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .?=,_. . . .?-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~?; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .?=-._. . .?;,,./`. . /? . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..?~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-?
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--
*deep sigh*

Arguably, it isn't. It doesn't involve image tags and is actually made up of textual characters. Is it the sort of low-content face-palm rot that both the "low content" and "picture" rules were intended to capture? Arguably, it is -- and if not, it ought to be. The point being that perhaps terms like "picture" aren't as well-defined in the rules as they could and ought to be. Which leaves their definition open to subjective ad hoc interpretation by both users and moderators.

We're arguing semantics.

That is low content and was/will be punished as such, and you know that.

I'm not arguing for the imposition of punishment on the poster. In fact, I'd prefer that you didn't take my bringing it to your attention for exemplary purposes as any sort of "reporting" on my part.

But we are arguing the forum rules and the meaning of those rules to both users and moderators. You can substitute the word "semantics" for the word "meaning" if you want (the two are synonymous), but, nevertheless, the meaning of the rules is still of great importance. If that meaning isn't clear to both users and moderators, then what's the guidance provided by the rules? There's none. The low content rule tells me not much more than that a low content post can be anything between "X" and "Y." Other than the "X" and the "Y," I have no clear idea from the rule what precisely constitutes a low content post. And even the "X" isn't all that clear. What precisely does it mean to "answer a question" with a post such that the result is a low content post? And I'd argue that by dint of my educational and professional experiences as a lawyer, I'd be better equipped than most to discern what the language of a rule means. But yet the rule leaves me scratching my head.

And let's not even touch the "slander" rule. If for no other reason than it speaks to an impossibility. Slander is spoken. Libel is written. A mistake which begins to suggest to me the amount of thought that went into the drafting to that particular quasi-legal rule.

EDIT: I see that it's too late for Muco5681. Damn. Ya'll ain't passing over not one opportunity, are ya?

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I don't believe I've received any infractions thus far (perhaps I'm too polite? ) and thus don't really have any quarrel with the administrators/moderators of the Escapist.

But I think I kind of agree that the period that you have to be a good boy seems a little strict. What period was it that it said you had to wait before your offenses were removed for intents and purposes(besides letting people know you'd caused offenses in the past), 2 years? Ouch, if so.

 

[jml spells jumle]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

This is better worded than how I would put it: http://deadhorseinterchange.com/wiki/index.php?title=If_you_don't_like_it,_don't_watch_it

 

[JoJo]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

This is better worded than how I would put it: http://deadhorseinterchange.com/wiki/index.php?title=If_you_don't_like_it,_don't_watch_it

*claps* well played sir, well played.

Anyhow, I can't be bothered to argue any more, I like this forum the way it is and if you don't like it, just PM Spinwhiz or another mod with your suggestions.

 

[John Funk]

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.

And again into circular logic.

I disagree with the way you feel the need to institute control. I was going to say "rules", but the real point of making rules is to control something. My point remains that I feel you've gone the extra mile to exert your will on your community, treating them like bad little children and sending them to the corner for each and every perceived transgression. Not only that, but you insist that because "its the rules" that its ok. Sorry, its not ok. Any person with a shred of self respect and common sense can see that this is not a place that fosters a mature community; its a place where behavior is micro-managed using negative reinforcement and fear tactics.

So, although I was a member of this community for quite some time with over a thousand posts, I really cannot in good conscience abide by these changes; not only that they were made, but that you felt they had to be made. I think its important that you know why I won't be posting here anymore, or endorsing The Escapist to my online friends.

Great, see ya!

And I'm honestly not being sarcastic. As Virgil said, if you don't feel that the rules that we have in place because we feel they're ultimately for the benefit of a constructive community are right for you, then you are more than welcome to leave and go to another forum that you feel suits you better. To be honest, we'd actually prefer it, because then it just saves everyone involved a headache.

But until you do that, you must understand that these forums are our domain. We choose to grant everyone here the privilege of posting, and we could revoke said privilege for whatever we damn well pleased. Maybe I really don't like people with red hair, so if you have red hair you're banned! Obviously that's silly, but that's how it is.

If you don't like the rules, then I hope you find a place more to your liking, but we're sticking to them.

 

[Mr Montmorency]

snip

Great, see ya!

And I'm honestly not being sarcastic. As Virgil said, if you don't feel that the rules that we have in place because we feel they're ultimately for the benefit of a constructive community are right for you, then you are more than welcome to leave and go to another forum that you feel suits you better. To be honest, we'd actually prefer it, because then it just saves everyone involved a headache.

But until you do that, you must understand that these forums are our domain. We choose to grant everyone here the privilege of posting, and we could revoke said privilege for whatever we damn well pleased. Maybe I really don't like people with red hair, so if you have red hair you're banned! Obviously that's silly, but that's how it is.

If you don't like the rules, then I hope you find a place more to your liking, but we're sticking to them.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you when you clearly have your fingers in your ears, so I'm just going to talk in a language you'll understand.

The more you enforce these rules, the more bad reputation you will have outside this website. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to mass ban anyone who offers criticism or advice for your forum management, since you have a large amount of disposable fans you can afford to ban thanks mostly to Yahtzee. And it's no secret that you're coasting on Yahtzee's popularity. And the reason why you're doing all of it is so you can squeeze every last cent you can from anyone who visits this website. I mean, it's obvious. The Ad-Blocker scandal, micromanaging how your members act on your forums, making sure the forum looks attractive to new members, the fancy looking "Publishers Club" that you keep advertising on every page, yeah, I understand. I know where you're going with it. Fair enough.

But nonetheless, it's not going to stop the very same people you banned since you began from expressing their opinions where you can't tell them what to do. You admit that the rules are illogical, and while you may blindly agree that we all follow them, anyone outside the website isn't subject to it. I'm sure you know that community integration is a very powerful tool for a business.

How long has the Escapist forum been up for? How many years? And The Escapist has mass banned how many thousands of well meaning users? Guess what? I think they might be a little pissed about you telling them what to do while you shove advertising in their face. I'm not exaggerating when I say that they're gathering together, growing in numbers and have a mountain of evidence (screencaps) against your company in the worst case, and are spreading a negative reputation to people they meet in the best case. I think they're a little more financially influential than a clubhouse full of sycophants, don't you agree?

Obviously, your business is going to suffer, one way or another. It's just a case of whether the Escapist is willing to stop acting like Maoist China. Otherwise, bye bye cushy job.

All the bannings might not have pissed the people off as much if your moderators didn't act so elitist when they were threatening to ban people for offering criticism. Much like how you're acting now. Just saying. I'm not going to bother arguing personally, since all I'll get is another cookie-cutter "we don't care what you think, we can get 10 more people to replace you when we ban you for making our forums look untidy". All I'm saying is that when you, statistically speaking, inevitably ban all 10 of them, you're going to have 10 angry "customers" biting you in the ass.

What did you think would happen? Did you expect to get away with treating your members like dog shit? If your forum crumbles, it doesn't take a genius to guess that everyone will clear off and take their business elsewhere. There's only so much shit people will take from the moderators before they'll go somewhere else. And these are people who you wouldn't have banned yet.

 

[John Funk]

snip

Great, see ya!

And I'm honestly not being sarcastic. As Virgil said, if you don't feel that the rules that we have in place because we feel they're ultimately for the benefit of a constructive community are right for you, then you are more than welcome to leave and go to another forum that you feel suits you better. To be honest, we'd actually prefer it, because then it just saves everyone involved a headache.

But until you do that, you must understand that these forums are our domain. We choose to grant everyone here the privilege of posting, and we could revoke said privilege for whatever we damn well pleased. Maybe I really don't like people with red hair, so if you have red hair you're banned! Obviously that's silly, but that's how it is.

If you don't like the rules, then I hope you find a place more to your liking, but we're sticking to them.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you when you clearly have your fingers in your ears, so I'm just going to talk in a language you'll understand.

Starting off like that isn't a very polite way to engender a discussion. Just fyi.

The more you enforce these rules, the more bad reputation you will have outside this website. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to mass ban anyone who offers criticism or advice for your forum management[/quote]

We are? News to me. Please read through this entire topic, and you'll notice that not only have we *not* "mass banned anyone who offers criticism or advice for our forum management," we've done quite the opposite and listened to their advice.

And it's no secret that you're coasting on Yahtzee's popularity. And the reason why you're doing all of it is so you can squeeze every last cent you can from anyone who visits this website. I mean, it's obvious. The Ad-Blocker scandal, micromanaging how your members act on your forums, making sure the forum looks attractive to new members, the fancy looking "Publishers Club" that you keep advertising on every page, yeah, I understand. I know where you're going with it.

The first point: No, not really. We love Yahtzee, but we have a lot of great, popular content that isn't ZP. You should check it out sometime

The second point: Here's the rub. Running The Escapist is not la la fun land. The 30 people who come to the office in Durham every day aren't there to mess around all day; it's a business. That means for some, working hard on developing new technology. For others, it means being on the phone all day getting ad sales. For still others, it means creating new and engaging new content like videos and articles.

And would you bet that the ~30 people in that office like to eat food and pay their rent? They have salaries that need paying every month. How about the LRR team that makes Unskippable and their sketch comedy? Or MovieBob, or the Extra Credits guys, or Yahtzee? I bet they really, really like being paid for their hard work.

So yes, making money is important to us, because this is a business. Don't get me wrong; we also love doing the work - it matters to us, and we're passionate about it. But that's also conditional on us being able to pay rent and buy food. If we couldn't make money off of this, the site would not exist because we wouldn't be doing it. And trying to figure out how to monetize what is, essentially, free content is very hard. We're not raking in dough hand over fist and lighting cigars with dollar bills, here.

The vast majority of our revenue is supported by ads. We're happy to give everybody free content where they can consume as much or as little as they want, but they just need to give us ad impressions in return. Honestly, for the amount of content we produce every day, that's a pretty damn good value proposition. But we also understand that people might not want to view ads - and for them we have the Pub Club, so they can support this site and go ad-free. We have a built-in adblocker for everyone that will cost you less than a magazine subscription.

You're accusing us of doing things we're not doing, have never done, and never intend to do - namely, micromanage the forums. Yes, we have a standard of conduct as does almost every other internet forum on the planet. We do that because we want our forum to be a nice place to visit. As long as people are constructive and polite, and use common sense in their discussion, have at it. This isn't exactly the stuff of Orwell, here.

But nonetheless, it's not going to stop the very same people you banned since you began from expressing their opinions where you can't tell them what to do. You admit that the rules are illogical, and while you may blindly agree that we all follow them, anyone outside the website isn't subject to it. I'm sure you know that community integration is a very powerful tool for a business.

What's your point here? That we can't control what people say outside of our website? That's kind of obvious. Hundreds of thousands of people watch ZP and Unskippable and read our news and articles every day - millions, actually. Do you think we're under the delusion that we can control what everyone says about us on other sites? Of course not. That's completely irrelevant.

I think the rules are perfectly logical, actually, for the environment we want to engender.

How long has the Escapist forum been up for? How many years? And The Escapist has mass banned how many thousands of well meaning users? Guess what? I think they might be a little pissed about you telling them what to do while you shove advertising in their face. I'm not exaggerating when I say that they're gathering together, growing in numbers and have a mountain of evidence (screencaps) against your company in the worst case, and are spreading a negative reputation to people they meet in the best case. I think they're a little more financially influential than a clubhouse full of sycophants, don't you agree?

1.) About 4 years, probably.

2.) Mass bannings? We don't do that. We do ban individual troublemakers, who I doubt are all as well-meaning as you would like to have everyone believe.

3.) We're not telling anyone what to do other than to stay within the boundaries of our rules. And pretty much every site has rules.

4.) I'm going to be blunt: We don't care how many of your so-called numbers there are. As Virgil said, the forums are a very small part of our overall traffic load, and those who cause trouble and are banned are a very small part of the forum traffic load. Obviously, we like our forum community; we like doing cool things with them and we like keeping the vast majority of them around - we wouldn't be trying to make our forums a better place for everyone if that weren't the case.

We've had disaffected users who weren't happy with our rules try to lead mass exoduses before, or even set up competing sites. They all had "numbers," too. But frankly, if they feel like that then it's for the best: We have rules, we have a forum environment we want to encourage, and if you don't want to play by our rules, then please, go play somewhere else. It's the best for everyone.

Obviously, your business is going to suffer, one way or another. It's just a case of whether the Escapist is willing to stop acting like Maoist China. Otherwise, bye bye cushy job.

1.) No, it probably won't. Not only are you likely drastically overestimating your influence, I have a feeling that most people won't flock to the banner of "They banned me on a forum when I broke their rules!"

2.) Maoist China? I get that you're going for hyperbole, but giving you a short list of things you aren't allowed to do or subjects that we don't feel are appropriate for our forums is hardly a repressive police state.

And I say this as someone planning on spending a year teaching english IN China. I've seen China, and sir, this is not China.

All the bannings might not have pissed the people off as much if your moderators didn't act so elitist when they were threatening to ban people for offering criticism. Much like how you're acting now. Just saying. I'm not going to bother arguing personally, since all I'll get is another cookie-cutter "we don't care what you think, we can get 10 more people to replace you when we ban you for making our forums look untidy". All I'm saying is that when you, statistically speaking, inevitably ban all 10 of them, you're going to have 10 angry "customers" biting you in the ass.

I'm sorry you think that educating you on your incorrect assumptions is elitist. And once again, we have never banned people for offering polite and constructive criticism - the evidence is this very thread.

It's funny that you think you know our forum statistics better than we do, by the way.

What did you think would happen? Did you expect to get away with treating your members like dog shit? If your forum crumbles, it doesn't take a genius to guess that everyone will clear off and take their business elsewhere. There's only so much shit people will take from the moderators before they'll go somewhere else. And these are people who you wouldn't have banned yet.

To listen to the angry posters say it, these forums have been crumbling since the day they were introduced. I think we'll be okay.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'm sorry you think that educating you on your incorrect assumptions is elitist. And once again, we have never banned people for offering polite and constructive criticism - the evidence is this very thread.

It's funny that you think you know our forum statistics better than we do, by the way.

I just want to comment on this one piece of what you said. First off, most Escapist-related topics I've seen on other websites have been predominately featuring "those guys are elitist" comments. You may or may not find that to be a negative quality, but there it is. I've heard people around here refer to this place as the "lighthouse of alexandria" of the Internet, and the snobbery against places like 4chan/YouTube is palpable, despite those places practicing a lot more free speech than The Escapist does.

Second, there have been "mass bannings."

-March Mayhem (remember when Spinwhiz went a little nuts and banned/suspended anyone who even started to say something negative about Zynga?) Even if you don't count that particular instance as a mass banning, the annual amount of bannings per MM event count, in my opinion, is high enough to qualify it for this. Look, when you invite the entire Internet to your website to join the forums, then you post this HUGE wall of rules and throw it in their face, then you have all this gray area between the rules, do you really think this makes for a fun experience for them? Can't you have some special rules during MM or something?

-Pub Club threads. All I've got to say about that. You think modding anyone who supports using adblock isn't a mass banning based on a completely arbitrary conclusion about what constitutes "theft?" Face facts: The rest of the Internet doesn't consider Adblock stealing, regardless of what your profit-hungry marketing staff might tell you.

-Lisa Foiles. You guys apparently liked her content so much that anyone who said something against her got moderated. Why? It wasn't good! Top Ten lists are the laziest thing in the world! Her cleavage is in the display picture for EVERY VIDEO! What was the big deal with somebody saying her content sucked? I mean, the bannings got toned down a bit later on, but still.

-Game dogs. Just... Game dogs. Yeah, those guys who said they didn't like the show and then got banned, they were all just "troublemakers." Yeah, that's right. After all, if they hadn't have been trouble makers, they would have either said they liked it or stopped watching/posting. What right did they have to give honest feedback about a show they didn't like. DUN LIKE IT DUN WATCH IT GUYZ

On an unrelated note, I have a real problem with what seems to be selective cultural sensitivity. It seems like the moderation staff tend to ignore flames and "hate speech" against Christians or the overweight (or don't see it because users don't report it, but I know I do), but anything about a racial, gender or cultural minority gets modded super fast. I tried talking to at least one moderator about this issue a while back (Aylaine), and it seemed like all that happened is certain threads were "disappeared" without any of the most sickening posts receiving any kind of punishment.

Finally, "the evidence is this very thread" is nonsense. Look, it's cool you guys haven't been as militant about policing negative feedback as I've seen y'all be in the past, but there have been many times mass moderation action has been incurred during these threads. EVEN THIS ONE has a huge number of suspended/warned users, and it had MORE before some of the actions were overturned. So, IN THIS THREAD we've seen evidence of poor moderator actions and improper suspensions/probations (not implying they all were, but obviously the overturned ones were, I mean, duh). Under these circumstances, it's hard to argue that the forums and community have been improving over time.

Finally, every website with content tries to monetize it. Some sites, like the LP Archives and Something Awful, do so in a way that shows respect for their community. They ask people politely to turn off adblock if they feel like it, rather than calling their people thieves and trying to shame them into buying a service that functionally does nothing (higher quality ZP/Moviebob/Big Picture isn't any kind of bonus when it's just a WMM file anyway).

 

[Mr Montmorency]

We love Yahtzee, but we have a lot of great, popular content that isn't ZP. You should check it out sometime

Everyone's modest at The Escapist!

it means creating new and engaging new content like videos and articles.

This sounds like an infomercial. I get the impression that you're also trying to address a third person reading your reply after finding this page on Google after searching "escapist censorship"

And would you bet that the ~30 people in that office like to eat food and pay their rent? They have salaries that need paying every month.

Hm, create a strawman, why don't you? There's a difference between you guys starving and simply exerting the effort to treat your customers with respect. Sure, you have guys who have salaries who need paying, but the point here is "do they even deserve it?"

But we also understand that people might not want to view ads - and for them we have the Pub Club, so they can support this site and go ad-free. We have a built-in adblocker for everyone that will cost you less than a magazine subscription.

Is someone else here or is it just me? Are you trying to sell me this? Again, you're tangentially referring to the guy reading your post who is no doubt looking for more information about the rumor that this forum is full of shit. Just keeping your arse covered, I see.

You're accusing us of doing things we're not doing, have never done, and never intend to do - namely, micromanage the forums. Yes, we have a standard of conduct as does almost every other internet forum on the planet. We do that because we want our forum to be a nice place to visit. As long as people are constructive and polite, and use common sense in their discussion, have at it. This isn't exactly the stuff of Orwell, here.

No, that's what you are doing. You're micromanaging how people act on your forum to a molecular level. Clearly it's an uphill battle, as I see suspended or otherwise banned users on every page. I'm not saying that you should have no rules at all, either, that's stupid. But you can't change how people act. Especially on the internet. Everyone is anonymous here, and they don't need money if they want to spread the word that you're all full of shit. And they will spread the word.

Hundreds of thousands of people watch ZP and Unskippable and read our news and articles every day - millions, actually.

Stay classy, John. You have mouths to feed.

I think the rules are perfectly logical, actually, for the environment we want to engender.

Yeah. You want a forum that looks attractive to new users so they can join up and pay you to get rid of the ads. You don't want anyone saying anything negative because that would be bad for business. Don't think people haven't noticed that this topic has been sunk. You may be refraining from banning people, but cutting off the complaints department with red tape isn't going to help things in your "we have a lovely forum" delusion.

You've done it before. They noticed. If you can't ban pretty much everyone, then you'll just sink the topics.

Mass bannings? We don't do that. We do ban individual troublemakers, who I doubt are all as well-meaning as you would like to have everyone believe.

I think banning the same users in a topic that happens to hurt your image counts as mass banning. You can argue the definition all you like, but that's what people outside of this forum consider mass banning, and they're the people who keep you in business.

We're not telling anyone what to do other than to stay within the boundaries of our rules. And pretty much every site has rules.

Oh yeah. But not everyone has a rules page that extends to about 2000 characters and considers browsing preference advice as illegal. You only make rules to get around the problems you have without actually solving them. For example, if you were nice to your users and didn't treat them like shit for AdBlock, they'd probably find another way to support you. If your ads make people block them, then that's your problem. It's still going to be a problem until you accept it and stop wasting your time and money banning people. The problem will only go away until you solve it. And the solution there is just to make your ads less annoying.

I'm going to be blunt: We don't care how many of your so-called numbers there are. As Virgil said, the forums are a very small part of our overall traffic load, and those who cause trouble and are banned are a very small part of the forum traffic load.

I'm I supposed to be representing the mass of enraged people or something? I'm just warning you bluntly. If you consider the users you ban as a mass of insignificant figures like you do here, you're going to see a lot of negative press that will only increase. You're acting like nobody can touch you in your huge super-fortress. Or should I say, Lighthouse of Alexandria.

We've had disaffected users who weren't happy with our rules try to lead mass exoduses before, or even set up competing sites. They all had "numbers," too. But frankly, if they feel like that then it's for the best: We have rules, we have a forum environment we want to encourage, and if you don't want to play by our rules, then please, go play somewhere else. It's the best for everyone.

Here's what we mean by elitism. Referring to the people who disagree or otherwise don't like you as "insignificant insects" or "numbers". You're putting out a fire with fire.

No, it probably won't. Not only are you likely drastically overestimating your influence, I have a feeling that most people won't flock to the banner of "They banned me on a forum when I broke their rules!"

My influence? I'm not the leader of the bloody resistance, you know! I'm quite aware that people don't flock to a banner of one guy flying the flag of dissent on his own. It's the Google search results, the bad word of mouth, pages and pages of negative posts on internet forums and a mountain of screencaps from people your "fair and balanced" moderators banned for insignificant offenses or criticizing. I'm not shitting you here. There are screencaps out there. Plain as day. There are numerous users who you've pissed off to a gigantic degree because they were veterans who put thousands of posts into the forum. Any rational person can see that the bannings are full of shit.

Maoist China? I get that you're going for hyperbole, but giving you a short list of things you aren't allowed to do or subjects that we don't feel are appropriate for our forums is hardly a repressive police state.

A short list? That list is a fucking novel.

And I say this as someone planning on spending a year teaching english IN China. I've seen China, and sir, this is not China.

Oh come on. Leave the strawman alone.

I'm sorry you think that educating you on your incorrect assumptions is elitist. And once again, we have never banned people for offering polite and constructive criticism - the evidence is this very thread.

Only the Escapist staff can contradict themselves in the same sentence like that. I've looked in this thread, and yes, I can see the evidence. Banned, suspended and warned users by the truckload. But this evidence isn't going to do anything for you if you sink the thread. If you're so proud of the "evidence" this topic has to offer, why are you sinking it?

It's funny that you think you know our forum statistics better than we do, by the way.

You know, for a writer, you're really bad at picking up hyperbole and exaggeration.

To listen to the angry posters say it, these forums have been crumbling since the day they were introduced. I think we'll be okay.

You keep telling yourself that. It's an uphill battle here. If any of the people who pay for your salaries have a shred of self respect, I'm sure at least one of them won't want to be associated with such a self-centred operation. If that doesn't happen, though, I'm sure they'll stick with you until the day when it finally dies. There's only so many times you can rotate the "entertainers" you hire before you reach a point where they don't want to be associated with your business. Considering that the backbone of The Escapist is Yahtzee, he's either going to leave or people are going to get tired of the same formula every week.

These people could self publish if they wanted to. Hey, if you want a business where you coast off the talent of internet personalities, you'd do good not to nurture an environment that could scare more of them away. Otherwise, they'll just start their own websites and you won't be taking any money for the publicity they generate. If you want this little operation to keep working, it's probably a good idea just to exert the effort to not bother treating people like they're bits of dog shit on the back of your shoe that you can discard whenever they become a problem.

The problem is already there, too. A good friend of mine had one of his articles printed on your website and he didn't receive any credit or payment for it because he was young and wasn't aware of the nature of your business. He wasn't offered a contract, and one of your "writers" stole the article. He says he can't say anything because, predictability, you would be litigious.

If you keep acting invincible, people are just going to prove you wrong with their wallets.

 

[John Funk]

I just want to comment on this one piece of what you said. First off, most Escapist-related topics I've seen on other websites have been predominately featuring "those guys are elitist" comments. You may or may not find that to be a negative quality, but there it is. I've heard people around here refer to this place as the "lighthouse of alexandria" of the Internet, and the snobbery against places like 4chan/YouTube is palpable, despite those places practicing a lot more free speech than The Escapist does.

Well, our elitism toward other sites has nothing to do with whether or not we act elitist to our own community, to split hairs

Second, there have been "mass bannings."

-March Mayhem (remember when Spinwhiz went a little nuts and banned/suspended anyone who even started to say something negative about Zynga?) Even if you don't count that particular instance as a mass banning, the annual amount of bannings per MM event count, in my opinion, is high enough to qualify it for this. Look, when you invite the entire Internet to your website to join the forums, then you post this HUGE wall of rules and throw it in their face, then you have all this gray area between the rules, do you really think this makes for a fun experience for them? Can't you have some special rules during MM or something?

We do have special rules during MM. That's why so many people get banned during that time. With such a high influx of users, we really want to focus on making the forums welcoming and inviting during that time, and given that tempers tend to run high during MM, we're more likely to lay the smack down then. We don't want someone coming to this shiny new forum and to immediately be told "(Company of your choice) is the worst developer ever, they suck gtfo."

-Pub Club threads. All I've got to say about that. You think modding anyone who supports using adblock isn't a mass banning based on a completely arbitrary conclusion about what constitutes "theft?" Face facts: The rest of the Internet doesn't consider Adblock stealing, regardless of what your profit-hungry marketing staff might tell you.

Not true [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars], for one.

For another, it does amount to getting our content - which costs money and a lot of effort to produce - for free. Take any developer, go to their forums, and start recommending that people torrent/pirate the game. I'm pretty sure you'd get moderated for that.

Look, we're aware that we can't stop people from using adblockers, and we're not going to do what Ars did and block anyone using one from visiting our site/viewing our content. But at the same time, the use of an adblocker genuinely hurts The Escapist as a business, and so we come down hard on anyone advocating their use to others - just as any developer or movie studio or whatever would probably come down hard on people telling others to pirate their game on their own official forums.

Also, I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that our marketing staff is profit-hungry when this sort of thing could possibly affect whether or not we're able to pay the people who create content for us what they deserve. They're not profit-hungry, they're making sure this site and its content keep existing.

-Lisa Foiles. You guys apparently liked her content so much that anyone who said something against her got moderated. Why? It wasn't good! Top Ten lists are the laziest thing in the world! Her cleavage is in the display picture for EVERY VIDEO! What was the big deal with somebody saying her content sucked? I mean, the bannings got toned down a bit later on, but still.

-Game dogs. Just... Game dogs. Yeah, those guys who said they didn't like the show and then got banned, they were all just "troublemakers." Yeah, that's right. After all, if they hadn't have been trouble makers, they would have either said they liked it or stopped watching/posting. What right did they have to give honest feedback about a show they didn't like. DUN LIKE IT DUN WATCH IT GUYZ

Part of the TOS involves being respectful to our content creators - but that doesn't mean automatically having to like it or not being able to say you don't like it. There's a world of difference between "I'm not sure what makes this separate from any top ten list on the internet, and the sex is a bit overblown for me" and "This shit sucks, cancel it." If anyone spoke like that to a user, we'd probably moderate them for flaming.

There are plenty of people who didn't like those shows and who offered polite criticism, and they're still around.

On an unrelated note, I have a real problem with what seems to be selective cultural sensitivity. It seems like the moderation staff tend to ignore flames and "hate speech" against Christians or the overweight (or don't see it because users don't report it, but I know I do), but anything about a racial, gender or cultural minority gets modded super fast. I tried talking to at least one moderator about this issue a while back (Aylaine), and it seemed like all that happened is certain threads were "disappeared" without any of the most sickening posts receiving any kind of punishment.

Finally, "the evidence is this very thread" is nonsense. Look, it's cool you guys haven't been as militant about policing negative feedback as I've seen y'all be in the past, but there have been many times mass moderation action has been incurred during these threads. EVEN THIS ONE has a huge number of suspended/warned users, and it had MORE before some of the actions were overturned. So, IN THIS THREAD we've seen evidence of poor moderator actions and improper suspensions/probations (not implying they all were, but obviously the overturned ones were, I mean, duh). Under these circumstances, it's hard to argue that the forums and community have been improving over time

For the first - enough people might not be reporting it.

For the second - you're confusing correlation with causation. This sort of thread is exactly the sort of thread in which tempers get heated and people start, well, flaming and trolling and being less than polite. If we were going to ban everyone who was disagreeing with us or our actions, ask yourself why we haven't just mass banned *everyone* in this thread who did that? Or why we haven't banned you yet? The difference, of course, is that you're discussing this relatively politely, as were the others.

In a thread this big and this impassioned, some people are going to step over a line.

Finally, every website with content tries to monetize it. Some sites, like the LP Archives and Something Awful, do so in a way that shows respect for their community. They ask people politely to turn off adblock if they feel like it, rather than calling their people thieves and trying to shame them into buying a service that functionally does nothing (higher quality ZP/Moviebob/Big Picture isn't any kind of bonus when it's just a WMM file anyway).

Have we ever directly called a user a thief? We've said it's tantamount to piracy, but I think that's that.

Also, would you really want us to go the SA way of making you pay money to register on our forums? Or to access the video archive? That would make a lot of people way more unhappy than anything we're doing here.

 

[John Funk]

We love Yahtzee, but we have a lot of great, popular content that isn't ZP. You should check it out sometime

Everyone's modest at The Escapist!

it means creating new and engaging new content like videos and articles.

This sounds like an infomercial. I get the impression that you're also trying to address a third person reading your reply after finding this page on Google after searching "escapist censorship"

We take pride in our content. And why would I be trying to address an imaginary third party like that when it's infinitely more likely that I'm trying to... address *you* and explain to you why your assumptions are incorrect? Occam's Razor.

And would you bet that the ~30 people in that office like to eat food and pay their rent? They have salaries that need paying every month.

Hm, create a strawman, why don't you? There's a difference between you guys starving and simply exerting the effort to treat your customers with respect. Sure, you have guys who have salaries who need paying, but the point here is "do they even deserve it?"

Unquestionably.

But we also understand that people might not want to view ads - and for them we have the Pub Club, so they can support this site and go ad-free. We have a built-in adblocker for everyone that will cost you less than a magazine subscription.

Is someone else here or is it just me? Are you trying to sell me this? Again, you're tangentially referring to the guy reading your post who is no doubt looking for more information about the rumor that this forum is full of shit. Just keeping your arse covered, I see.

For someone who is fond of crying "strawman," you're sure fond of using them yourself. I am not trying to *sell* you anything, I am trying to *explain* to you why our site works the way it does, and why your assumptions are, once again, incorrect.

You're accusing us of doing things we're not doing, have never done, and never intend to do - namely, micromanage the forums. Yes, we have a standard of conduct as does almost every other internet forum on the planet. We do that because we want our forum to be a nice place to visit. As long as people are constructive and polite, and use common sense in their discussion, have at it. This isn't exactly the stuff of Orwell, here.

No, that's what you are doing. You're micromanaging how people act on your forum to a molecular level. Clearly it's an uphill battle, as I see suspended or otherwise banned users on every page. I'm not saying that you should have no rules at all, either, that's stupid. But you can't change how people act. Especially on the internet. Everyone is anonymous here, and they don't need money if they want to spread the word that you're all full of shit. And they will spread the word.

Vague threats will get you nowhere. And really, I get the feeling you haven't really seen other popular forums on the internet; their TOS tend to be every bit as concrete as ours. It's okay, I remember being 17 and outraged at the GameFAQs forum rules, too.

Hundreds of thousands of people watch ZP and Unskippable and read our news and articles every day - millions, actually.

Stay classy, John. You have mouths to feed.

Yes, facts are classy, aren't they?

I think the rules are perfectly logical, actually, for the environment we want to engender.

Yeah. You want a forum that looks attractive to new users so they can join up and pay you to get rid of the ads. You don't want anyone saying anything negative because that would be bad for business.

Strawman. We want a community that's attractive and welcoming to new users... because we want a community that grows and is vibrant with creative, constructive discourse. And that includes negativity.

Don't think people haven't noticed that this topic has been sunk. You may be refraining from banning people, but cutting off the complaints department with red tape isn't going to help things in your "we have a lovely forum" delusion.

You've done it before. They noticed. If you can't ban pretty much everyone, then you'll just sink the topics.

If this topic has been sunk, it's because it's run its course. It was constructive and helped us amend our new rules, but that's it. I'm not sure what part of "engaging the community directly to discuss the new rules with them and point out things they might have missed while taking feedback into account" is "cutting off the complaints department with red tape," but okay.

Sinking a topic is done when we feel it's a thread that hasn't crossed the line where it should be locked, but where it's about a very hot-button issue that could send tempers flaring. Abortion, politics, piracy, religion, etc. Cutting off the influx of new users can forestall that. It is not meant to pretty things up.

Mass bannings? We don't do that. We do ban individual troublemakers, who I doubt are all as well-meaning as you would like to have everyone believe.

I think banning the same users in a topic that happens to hurt your image counts as mass banning. You can argue the definition all you like, but that's what people outside of this forum consider mass banning, and they're the people who keep you in business.

Please, see my post above about how correlation does not equal causation. If we just wanted to ban users in a "topic that happens to hurt our image," we would have done so indiscriminately without trying to engage and interact with them first. I would have banned *you* rather than trying to discuss it politely with you.

They are a very small part of the people who keep us in business, that's true.

We're not telling anyone what to do other than to stay within the boundaries of our rules. And pretty much every site has rules.

Oh yeah. But not everyone has a rules page that extends to about 2000 characters and considers browsing preference advice as illegal. You only make rules to get around the problems you have without actually solving them. For example, if you were nice to your users and didn't treat them like shit for AdBlock, they'd probably find another way to support you. If your ads make people block them, then that's your problem. It's still going to be a problem until you accept it and stop wasting your time and money banning people. The problem will only go away until you solve it. And the solution there is just to make your ads less annoying.

The length of the rules page - that is, including our explanations for rules and not the rules itself - is ultimately irrelevant. If you actually look at the TOS for many other popular sites and forums around here, they'll be pretty similar, if not maybe a bit longer.

Once more, see my post above: If you went to any developer or publisher and advocated the piracy of their game, you would probably be banned. We know we can't stop people from using adblockers (though we would a.) really appreciate it if they didn't and B.) be happy if they took up our own service to get rid of the ads they find annoying while still supporting us).

I'm going to be blunt: We don't care how many of your so-called numbers there are. As Virgil said, the forums are a very small part of our overall traffic load, and those who cause trouble and are banned are a very small part of the forum traffic load.

I'm I supposed to be representing the mass of enraged people or something? I'm just warning you bluntly. If you consider the users you ban as a mass of insignificant figures like you do here, you're going to see a lot of negative press that will only increase. You're acting like nobody can touch you in your huge super-fortress. Or should I say, Lighthouse of Alexandria.

You've brought it up, so sure, why not?

We're being realists. There are lots of things that we need to be concerned about in an evolving media world. To be blunt, a handful of disaffected users really isn't one of them.

We've had disaffected users who weren't happy with our rules try to lead mass exoduses before, or even set up competing sites. They all had "numbers," too. But frankly, if they feel like that then it's for the best: We have rules, we have a forum environment we want to encourage, and if you don't want to play by our rules, then please, go play somewhere else. It's the best for everyone.

Here's what we mean by elitism. Referring to the people who disagree or otherwise don't like you as "insignificant insects" or "numbers". You're putting out a fire with fire.

There's that strawman again. I'm referring them to "numbers" because that was how your post clearly tried to portray them - as a dangerous horde waiting over the horizon, lying in wait to ransack Rome. Did I ever call them insignificant insects? No, friend, that was you.

No, it probably won't. Not only are you likely drastically overestimating your influence, I have a feeling that most people won't flock to the banner of "They banned me on a forum when I broke their rules!"

My influence? I'm not the leader of the bloody resistance, you know! I'm quite aware that people don't flock to a banner of one guy flying the flag of dissent on his own. It's the Google search results, the bad word of mouth, pages and pages of negative posts on internet forums and a mountain of screencaps from people your "fair and balanced" moderators banned for insignificant offenses or criticizing. I'm not shitting you here. There are screencaps out there. Plain as day. There are numerous users who you've pissed off to a gigantic degree because they were veterans who put thousands of posts into the forum. Any rational person can see that the bannings are full of shit.

Sorry, the "your" there was a generic "you." But if you didn't feel like you could speak for them, why bring it up?

I'm sure there are screencaps out there plain as day. But from a realist perspective, there have been angry, disaffected users who have tried to bring down every videogame site ever since the dawn of time. Most of those attempts have one thing in common - can you guess what it is?

Again, I used to be on the GameFAQs forums when I was much younger, and their TOS there was infinitely more strict than ours. We used to imagine we'd rally the base and prove to the world just how bad the moderation was. It didn't happen.

Every site has detractors and people who aren't happy about the way they do things. Hell, we have people who think the site is too LENIENT now compared to when Joe was running things (they're the real old-timers here). We know we aren't going to make anybody happy, but frankly, our time is better spent caring about other things.

Maoist China? I get that you're going for hyperbole, but giving you a short list of things you aren't allowed to do or subjects that we don't feel are appropriate for our forums is hardly a repressive police state.

A short list? That list is a fucking novel.

You really should visit other sites more.

And I say this as someone planning on spending a year teaching english IN China. I've seen China, and sir, this is not China.

Oh come on. Leave the strawman alone.

If you wanted me to leave the strawman alone, you should stop raising him.

I'm sorry you think that educating you on your incorrect assumptions is elitist. And once again, we have never banned people for offering polite and constructive criticism - the evidence is this very thread.

Only the Escapist staff can contradict themselves in the same sentence like that. I've looked in this thread, and yes, I can see the evidence. Banned, suspended and warned users by the truckload. But this evidence isn't going to do anything for you if you sink the thread. If you're so proud of the "evidence" this topic has to offer, why are you sinking it?

Again, see my post above. Correlation does not imply causation. It implies that there are people in this thread who crossed a line in their heated discussions, whereas the vast majority of other posters - even those who didn't like the new rules - just got along fine.

If you're going to raise conspiracy theories, then why haven't we banned you yet? Why haven't we deleted the "Escapists against the machine" user group? Your arguments simply don't hold up when we follow them to their logical conclusions.

I explained why we sink threads above.

It's funny that you think you know our forum statistics better than we do, by the way.

You know, for a writer, you're really bad at picking up hyperbole and exaggeration.

Or perhaps I feel it's more important to address it even as such.

To listen to the angry posters say it, these forums have been crumbling since the day they were introduced. I think we'll be okay.

You keep telling yourself that. It's an uphill battle here. If any of the people who pay for your salaries have a shred of self respect, I'm sure at least one of them won't want to be associated with such a self-centred operation. If that doesn't happen, though, I'm sure they'll stick with you until the day when it finally dies. There's only so many times you can rotate the "entertainers" you hire before you reach a point where they don't want to be associated with your business. Considering that the backbone of The Escapist is Yahtzee, he's either going to leave or people are going to get tired of the same formula every week.

I think they would probably feel it was more important that they got a monthly paycheck, to be honest. Because for them, this is a job too.

That is, assuming they disagreed with our philosophy, which - given that they themselves have entered the debate re: Adblockers and the like - isn't really a sure thing. We're proud of the operation we run, and our contributors are, too.

These people could self publish if they wanted to. Hey, if you want a business where you coast off the talent of internet personalities, you'd do good not to nurture an environment that could scare more of them away. Otherwise, they'll just start their own websites and you won't be taking any money for the publicity they generate. If you want this little operation to keep working, it's probably a good idea just to exert the effort to not bother treating people like they're bits of dog shit on the back of your shoe that you can discard whenever they become a problem.

The problem is already there, too. A good friend of mine had one of his articles printed on your website and he didn't receive any credit or payment for it because he was young and wasn't aware of the nature of your business. He wasn't offered a contract, and one of your "writers" stole the article. He says he can't say anything because, predictability, you would be litigious.

If you keep acting invincible, people are just going to prove you wrong with their wallets.

Plagiarism is a serious, serious allegation. If you know someone who has evidence that one of our contract workers stole one of his articles, then by all means email [email protected].

We're not acting invincible. We're acting like realists. Our energy is much better focused on things that actually matter. We're sorry that some people don't like our forums, but they're welcome to go someplace else. And on that note, I need to go do actual work, so I won't be responding anymore. Good day!

 

[jml spells jumle]

This is better worded than how I would put it: http://deadhorseinterchange.com/wiki/index.php?title=If_you_don't_like_it,_don't_watch_it

*claps* well played sir, well played.

Anyhow, I can't be bothered to argue any more, I like this forum the way it is and if you don't like it, just PM Spinwhiz or another mod with your suggestions.

Is that it? Just tell me to argue with another mod and give one of the worst ones as an example? Not actually doing anything. Frankly, I'm suprised you accepted losing an argument, but why don't you actually change it since it doesn't make sense?

 

[JoJo]

This is better worded than how I would put it: http://deadhorseinterchange.com/wiki/index.php?title=If_you_don't_like_it,_don't_watch_it

*claps* well played sir, well played.

Anyhow, I can't be bothered to argue any more, I like this forum the way it is and if you don't like it, just PM Spinwhiz or another mod with your suggestions.

Is that it? Just tell me to argue with another mod and give one of the worst ones as an example? Not actually doing anything. Frankly, I'm suprised you accepted losing an argument, but why don't you actually change it since it doesn't make sense?

Um... lol? Late reply

Look mate, I haven't "accepted losing" as this argument is never going to go anywhere, as it's just down to opinion. You may prefer having less restrictions, I prefer more. That sort of opinion isn't going to change.

I'll tell you what, visit this group:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/chat/Ideas-for-The-Escapist

It was specially set up just a few days ago by Spinwhiz for users to give their ideas on how to improve the Escapist. Fact is, as much as I love the Escapist I don't make the rules so arguing with me won't change anything. Put your thoughts on there, and if your lucky someone high up will take notice.