Poll: Open discussion on "rude" and other rules

[Passive Aggression]

I think the staff really owes a lot of a lost faith to the community after what happened with Topaz, and a lot of bridges which were burnt need repairing.

A lot of these burnt bridges seem to be with people who joined long after this stuff actually happened.

Yeah, this is weird. People seem to be coming out of the woodwork just to gripe some more about Topaz (who isn't even a mod anymore, and isn't even HERE anymore).

Like this:

Topaz was also staunchly against any changes to moderation and would argue quite fervently against such changes in topics like this.

How does someone who only joined two days ago know any of this? You wouldn't happen to be a ban-dodger, perchance?

How does somebody such as yourself, who wasn't alive in roman times know of Julius Caesar's assassination?!

You don't have to be around to experience things in order to know they exist. The forums keep it all in a nice chronological history, in which anyone can view.

I've lurked for a little while, yes. But if you must know, I came across this thread by finding it linked here.

I was addressing something in this thread that I felt hadn't been sufficiently addressed by anyone else yet. Take it or leave it. But I have just as much right to air my concerns here as you or anyone else.

Not questioning your right. I just think it's shitty for other sites to consciously try to shift the politics of one they don't like, simply to make it less welcoming for viewpoints they don't want around.

Even moderators themselves have admitted issues with the system and think there's room for change.

You're objecting to things even the staff in question are in favor of?

Never said, and nor do I believe, that the system has no issues/ room for improvement.

I said I object to "off-site efforts to change what this place is like", such as the recent thread encouraging people to sign up to this forum expressly to make the Mods' work less pleasant. It's deceptive, controlling, shitty behaviour.

I'm not accusing you of it, note, I have no reason to think you're individually guilty of it.

Genetic fallacies tend to make things very cliquey.

I'm not looking to be listened to, but, if somebody finds something I say to be of some use in resolving the situation, I'm quite happy to have been able to say it.




However, given you're both being so nosey, I'll spill my fairly mundane and not quite so covert origins.


Long time account, posted a while back, got tired of the mod bullshit and so I quit, came back recently unsurprised to hear all the drama.

Forgot my account password. In the process of recovering it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Semi-regularly, you will see a user suddenly gets randomly banned, with no link to an offending post and no other reason for the ban given. Often such users have many hundreds if not thousands of posts. And we have no way of knowing why these users have been banned all of a sudden.

That's a lack of transparency.

OK, so you are technically correct here, in that reasons aren't given.
However you should be aware of an ongoing trend of people requesting to be banned.

Which, the mods will in fact oblige if you ask them.
Several of my early friends on this site did it.
They weren't coping, and they didn't feel they had the strength to stop posting, so they asked to be banned.
I've seen it first-hand, and I've seen anecdotal comments from some of the mods explaining the bans of certain people this way.

It of course doesn't invalidate your point, but it's worth remembering that this happens around here fairly regularly.

Anyway,
Moderating a forum is a difficult task. And unfortunately anything you do is going to create problems of one kind or another.

Nobody is unbiased. It just doesn't happen. Sorry. You have to keep that in mind here, because the mods are human, not robots.

And no set of rules is perfect. The more you try and set it in stone, the more things will end up slipping through the cracks. Besides which, have you seen what happens?
Do you think anybody is even going to care what the rules of conduct on a forum actually are if it's a 10,000 page document? (Samsung's EULA comes to mind... Nobody reads it, because it's impossible to do in any reasonable sense. We just blindly click 'accept' and hope it doesn't contain anything too horrible.)

Going down that road might seem like it would make things clearer, but... It really doesn't. Once a normal human being can no longer keep track of all these rules, a lot of them lose their meaning, because no reasonable person can even begin to know what all of them are.

That certainly wouldn't help the situation on these forums much.

I know what these forums are like. I've seen both direct and indirect insults, people attempting to goad others into saying the wrong thing (people have done that to me at times, I know), and all manner of other stuff.
But, having seen what the escapist is like, compared to other places...
I would say you can shift the nature of the problem around, but I don't think you can truly fix it.

One change to the rules merely takes away one problem and creates another. Change something to fix that and the problems shift somewhere else.

It's less a matter of trying to solve all the problems as it is a matter of choosing which problems you are willing to live with, and which you aren't.

 

[Silvanus]

Genetic fallacies tend to make things very cliquey.

I'm not looking to be listened to, but, if somebody finds something I say to be of some use in resolving the situation, I'm quite happy to have been able to say it.

However, given you're both being so nosey, I'll spill my fairly mundane and not quite so covert origins.

Long time account, posted a while back, got tired of the mod bullshit and so I quit, came back recently unsurprised to hear all the drama.

Forgot my account password. In the process of recovering it.

Welcome back to the board.

Hope you forgive the suspicion. Seeing this place get targeted more than once has begun to get my heckles up.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

If you want a good idea of what "personal interpretation rules" can do to an internet community, please go take a look at the original Steam forum boards. Mods playing loose and fast with interpretation over there completely destroyed any trust the members of the community had in the system.

Humans are way too fickle emotionally to be trusted with snap judgements.

 

[IceForce]

And while that works for some specific things, like not calling people the T word,

What's the 'T' word?

"Troll". You're not allowed to call anyone a troll here.

COC: "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction."

 

[inmunitas]

Still, what I'd say is this: "You want to allow for distro of child porn" in the context of a debate could be a very real, albeit inflammatory assertion. "You are being disingenuous" as a flat statement is just a nice way of saying, "LIAR!!!". I would say that instead of saying that they're bullshitting, SHOW that they're bullshitting.

Which can just lead to the discussions being dragged down to the level of mulling over basic dictionary definitions of the English vocabulary rather then something that's actually intellectually stimulating.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Dislike.. not that they shouldn't do personal inerpretation but at the very least they should cite the problematic sentence or paragraph. Otherwise you have no real idea what you said that was so 'rude'. After all..where personal interpretation comes into play, it's sort of a given that you at least highlight the offensive matter otherwise the offender has no clue what in the entire post was flagged as rude.

 

[vallorn]

I think the staff really owes a lot of a lost faith to the community after what happened with Topaz, and a lot of bridges which were burnt need repairing.

A lot of these burnt bridges seem to be with people who joined long after this stuff actually happened.

Yeah, this is weird. People seem to be coming out of the woodwork just to gripe some more about Topaz (who isn't even a mod anymore, and isn't even HERE anymore).

Like this:

Topaz was also staunchly against any changes to moderation and would argue quite fervently against such changes in topics like this.

How does someone who only joined two days ago know any of this? You wouldn't happen to be a ban-dodger, perchance?

I'd say no, lurker, reading what people have posted in the past or the recent 8chan thread on moderation are all decent reasons to know about significant forum events. Hell, I know about Mellow Leprechauns but I wasn't around at the time.

 

[Username Redacted]

Moderating a forum is a difficult task. And unfortunately anything you do is going to create problems of one kind or another.

Moderating is thankless. Yes. Difficult? Not really. Not unless you have a ton of ticky-tack rules to enforce and a user-base that uses your services as a proxy to fight their battles for them. Hell, The Escapist, as best as I can tell, has quit a favorable mod to general user ratio (or at least a favorable mod to posting volume) which should insure that moderators aren't overworked/bombarded with review flags.

Nobody is unbiased. It just doesn't happen. Sorry. You have to keep that in mind here, because the mods are human, not robots.

The solution here is greater transparency (i.e. let people know who is making what decisions) and, when possible, try to make decisions by consensus (i.e. have three mods review each flagged message with the outcome being whatever the majority decides). Also because one of the issues that seems to be coming up a lot in this topic is appeals being overturned due to disagreements about how a rule was enforced. In that case if a mod consistently has their decisions overturned on appeal then perhaps they should no longer be a moderator.

 

[sky14kemea]

snip

Thank you for laying that out for me. I was wondering when someone would reply. I'll pass that on to the other Mods and see if we can work on it, though I can't promise an immediate change, since communication between us all tends to take a little time.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to address this. Yes it is separate people who handle the appeals. Usually ffronw handles the appeals.

 

[sky14kemea]

What happens if a troll shows up though, do you wait for the mods, or call them a Goblin?

You report the post and ignore them. Or you can also PM a Mod directly to tell them you think they may be trolling or flamebaiting.

Basically the "Don't feed the trolls" rule applies. If they aren't breaking the rules but being obvious about it, just ignore them. They'll eventually move on or slip up at some point.

 

[runic knight]

What happens if a troll shows up though, do you wait for the mods, or call them a Goblin?

You report the post and ignore them. Or you can also PM a Mod directly to tell them you think they may be trolling or flamebaiting.

Basically the "Don't feed the trolls" rule applies. If they aren't breaking the rules but being obvious about it, just ignore them. They'll eventually move on or slip up at some point.

You know, that does sort of undermine the whole idea of the rules being there to promote discussion when the response to someone actively harming the discussion is to just pretend they aren't there and try to work around them in hopes that the moderators swing in favor of stopping the disruptive behavior instead of allowing it for not being "rude".

In practice, it encourages people to give up and leave, and as described before, teaches others that the way to "win" a debate is to be so close to the line that you annoy and destroy discussion while not actually getting strikes for it. Often this is tied with people trying to get other posters strikes. The behavior itself could be described as flamebaiting even, though it seems standard practice by some now to ignore and undermine discussion because people are not allowed to call it out and instead have to rely on a system that, quite frankly, is often not seen as trustworthy or capable to actually handle it properly.

Yeah, not feeding the troll and reporting them sounds good on paper, but when execution doesn't work well, that is a small comfort to those who have to put up with that behavior in the forums over and over again, especially from less scrupulous people who may be trying to get others banned.

 

[IceForce]

On the subject of the 'T'-word rule, I've never been a fan of it myself. If anything, it actually makes trolling EASIER.

If a troll is clever enough, they'll never be moderated for trolling (or they'll be moderated so rarely, ie: no more than once every 6 months, so they never end up banned).
And no matter how outrageous or outlandish their posts or threads get, or how obvious their trolling is, we're still not allowed to call them what they are. This includes pointing out their behavior to other people who might not be aware of the user's history or M.O.

And that's the problem, "just ignore the trolls" doesn't work if people are unaware the person is even a troll to begin with. Which means trolls ALWAYS get fed, at least initially, until someone else (who is unaware) comes along and engages with the troll, and the whole problem starts again.

To make matters worse, oftentimes you'll see people being moderated for (correctly) identifying a troll, while the troll gets away scot-free.
So no, I've never been a fan of that rule myself.

 

[IceForce]

How does someone who only joined two days ago know any of this? You wouldn't happen to be a ban-dodger, perchance?

I'd say no, lurker, reading what people have posted in the past or the recent 8chan thread on moderation are all decent reasons to know about significant forum events. Hell, I know about Mellow Leprechauns but I wasn't around at the time.

Mellow ... what? I must confess, I don't know what that is...

 

[Janaschi]

The current moderation is not really a big issue, I feel. To be frank, I think the moderation on The Escapist is some of the more diligent on the Internet, which is something to appreciate after looking at other communities that can only be explained with terms such as "...bitter..." or "...spiteful..." There are only a few things that I am a bit iffy about:

1. The Escapist has always had stricter rules than many other communities, which is something I like, as it keeps the community from becoming full of outright vitriol. But it has gotten to the point over the past couple of years, where political correctness is beginning to dictate many warnings/bans. There is a huge difference between being rude, and having someone who finds offense at the slightest introduction of strong discussion.
*There is nothing wrong with a little emotionally-charged discussion. It is healthy in many cases, even. So, for instance, if I have a guy in a discussion, that clearly is mistaken about something, and someone makes it clear as to why they are mistaken, I feel that in no way, that they should be banned/warned for condescension (a growing punishment as of late). I am sorry - this is outright political correctness. Might as well and ban all emotional-input while we are at it.

2. I have not been able to figure this out, yet, but in a lot of scenarios that I have witnessed, the moderation is either holding double-standards, or they are too lazy/do not have enough time to hold everyone to the expectations that they hold other members to. If someone is being personally insulted, and the insulted party replies with sarcasm, yet their sarcasm gets them banned for "Condescension," while the other party's personal insults slide, then there is a huge problem with the moderation being seen there. Yet that is becoming interestingly more common, too.

3. Lack of communication - this one annoys me the most. I remember when I received my first warning back in March. I was warned for being rude in a conversation. Looking at their link, my offending comment was over a reply to someone that did not understand what Communism was, yet was using it in conversation to essentially insult a developer studio, and I called them a sensationalist. There is a huge difference between an insult, and an observation, and I still feel, to this day, that I should not have been warned for calling someone out for being exactly that: a sensationalist.

I sent them a message, as I was genuinely curious as to where they drew the line. I was also interested in a reply, because the person I had replied to, was purposefully peppering their rhetoric with words such as "...rape...," and comparing a game studio to Communists, yet they never saw a similar warning to what I received. I never got a reply with them, and I was essentially ignored. I know quite a few others on here that have had a similar experience, too.

 

[IceForce]

I sent them a message, as I was genuinely curious as to where they drew the line. I was also interested in a reply, because the person I had replied to, was purposefully peppering their rhetoric with words such as "...rape...," and comparing a game studio to Communists, yet they never saw a similar warning to what I received. I never got a reply with them, and I was essentially ignored. I know quite a few others on here that have had a similar experience, too.

The appeals process here can be very hit-and-miss.
I actually got a private message of apology from the Community Manager himself, as a response to the last appeal I sent in. However, my experience with appeals prior to had been somewhat less than satisfactory, (which suggests to me that maybe the site staff have taken a few criticisms on board and made improvements in this area).
In any case, my prior experience with the appeals process had been an experience similar to yours. I either got no reply at all, or I only got boilerplate auto-replies and canned responses that had little to no relevance to my actual warning.

But to speak about your situation specifically; I would wager the reason why the person you replied to never got moderated was because they didn't insult anyone on this site (unless you personally happen to be an employee of the game studio in question, of course).

Typically, the mods only step in when insults towards other forum members are posted. They generally don't care about insults directed at anyone else.

 

[Janaschi]

I sent them a message, as I was genuinely curious as to where they drew the line. I was also interested in a reply, because the person I had replied to, was purposefully peppering their rhetoric with words such as "...rape...," and comparing a game studio to Communists, yet they never saw a similar warning to what I received. I never got a reply with them, and I was essentially ignored. I know quite a few others on here that have had a similar experience, too.

The appeals process here can be very hit-and-miss.
I actually got a private message of apology from the Community Manager himself, as a response to the last appeal I sent in. However, my experience with appeals prior to had been somewhat less than satisfactory, (which suggests to me that maybe the site staff have taken a few criticisms on board and made improvements in this area).
In any case, my prior experience with the appeals process had been an experience similar to yours. I either got no reply at all, or I only got boilerplate auto-replies and canned responses that had little to no relevance to my actual warning.

But to speak about your situation specifically; I would wager the reason why the person you replied to never got moderated was because they didn't insult anyone on this site (unless you personally happen to be an employee of the game studio in question, of course).

Typically, the mods only step in when insults towards other forum members are posted. They generally don't care about insults directed at anyone else.

I would hope not, to be honest - I respect The Escapist, and I appreciate their level of moderation, even if there are a few quirks with their system. Sanctimony is something I would not expect from them, though. One cannot hold moral superiority, while holding blatant double-standards like that at the same time.

Slander/libel, and irresponsible use of rhetoric for sensationalist purposes, does not change just because it is being directed at people/organizations/communities outside of this website.

 

[IceForce]

This is why I'm still nervous about posting in THIS thread, because it's theoretically possible that a mod could come along and whack most of the posts in here, and there would nothing to stop them from doing so.

Good points. As far as posting in this thread, I would hope you were safe. First, with the tone of voice I use just think of me as your "canary in the mineshaft". Besides, I think a mod flagging anything other than blatant abuse in this thread, already tacitly endorsed by having mods post in it would be silly and honestly, not something they would do. They're not stupid people, they're given poor guidelines.

Exactly my point. A rule should be enforced, or the rule shouldn't exist at all. It's silly to have rules in the COC that are only enforced some of the time and not others.

In this very thread, apparently the "publicly airing your grievances" rule doesn't apply. How was I to know of this exception when I made my first reply to this thread on page 1?
Conversely, when I got warned in a different thread some time ago, for "publicly airing my grievances", how was I to know that the thread I was posting in WASN'T exempt from that rule? (Especially being on the Forum Games board, where I was under the impression that the moderation was less strict. But apparently I was wrong on that.)

So I guess it comes back to an issue of consistency. This very thread, unwittingly and by its very existence, demonstrates that there are one or more rules that aren't 100% consistently enforced.
No, I don't think everyone in this thread should be warned, that would be silly. But perhaps the rule shouldn't even be in the COC at all? Especially if there are going to be unspoken exemptions to the rule at certain times but not others.

 

[IceForce]

Slander/libel, and irresponsible use of rhetoric for sensationalist purposes, does not change just because it is being directed at people/organizations/communities outside of this website.

Possibly. But if you forbade insults toward anyone at all (irrespective of their forum membership), then you would have to start moderating comments such as "Barack Obama is an idiot", for instance.

Basically, it starts to turn into a situation where you're moderating people for their opinions, rather than because they did something wrong.

 

[Janaschi]

Slander/libel, and irresponsible use of rhetoric for sensationalist purposes, does not change just because it is being directed at people/organizations/communities outside of this website.

Possibly. But if you forbade insults toward anyone at all (irrespective of their forum membership), then you would have to start moderating comments such as "Barack Obama is an idiot", for instance.

Basically, it starts to turn into a situation where you're moderating people for their opinions, rather than because they did something wrong.

Exactly my point, which highlights a perfectly valid reason as to why the parameters for warnings/bans should be re-evaluated if the chance is ever present. I digress to something I said earlier: "Might as well and ban all emotional-input while we are at it."

If a conversation gets out of hand, and the thread starts to become destabilized, that is when I understand the need for moderation; even over minor infractions. But everyone has their opinions, and we are not robots - there will be emotions in most cases, when we are expressing our opinions. Expecting otherwise is going against human nature itself.

And that is exactly the problem. The moment I cannot observe that a sensationalist is being a sensationalist - the moment where someone cannot be sarcastic, even to a person that just personally insulted them - the moment when you cannot join a discussion about ideology/personal opinions, and post your thoughts without looking over your shoulder for spontaneous moderation... we are essentially being told to act like robots with no personality.

Tl;dr? I understand moderation. I do not understand, nor respect political correctness. Especially when intentional/non-intentional double-standards are held in the efforts to maintain said political correctness.