Editor's Note, Supplemental: 20 August, 2018

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

MrGalactus:
Well I came down here to be all triumphant and happy about a revival I never thought would happen, until...

Russ Pitts:
I WILL NOT TOLERATE HARASSMENT OR CRITICISM OF CONTRIBUTORS AND STAFF ON ANY GROUNDS.

Harassment, fair enough. Criticism? That's...a little disturbing. Hoping I'm misinterpreting, but being able to be honest in the only community of not-shitheads there is on the internet is the deeper point of this place, isn't it? And who's going to remind Yahtzee that he's a spazz without Gabe, and now the Forums?

RIP Let's Drown Out. You will be missed.

Russ Pitts:
Again, I WILL NOT TOLERATE HARASSMENT OR CRITICISM OF CONTRIBUTORS AND STAFF ON ANY GROUNDS. And politically motivated criticism will receive especially harsh infractions.

This is now the rule.

This is ridiculous and I'm assuming your just writing this due to strong emotion or something and haven't really though it out, because otherwise, no criticism, really? Even if they write a piece that's factually wrong, can't criticism them for that?

You have to realize how crazy and unenforceable that rule will be, say a contributor get into a car accident that killed peoples and it's discovered they were driving drunk or something (trying to keep this non political) no criticism of that behavior will be accepted? They will just keep writing on the website like nothing happened and anyone that take offence to that will be banned?

Anyway, I think the rule will blow up on it's own, next time there's a controversy that's even slightly political (like the cyberpunk 2077 joke) the only way to stay apolitical would be to stay silent and I don't think contributor will do that. You might want to put a firewall between what they do on the escapist and outside, but they're still the same person.

Meiam:

Russ Pitts:
Again, I WILL NOT TOLERATE HARASSMENT OR CRITICISM OF CONTRIBUTORS AND STAFF ON ANY GROUNDS. And politically motivated criticism will receive especially harsh infractions.

This is now the rule.

This is ridiculous and I'm assuming your just writing this due to strong emotion or something and haven't really though it out, because otherwise, no criticism, really? Even if they write a piece that's factually wrong, can't criticism them for that?

You have to realize how crazy and unenforceable that rule will be, say a contributor get into a car accident that killed peoples and it's discovered they were driving drunk or something (trying to keep this non political) no criticism of that behavior will be accepted? They will just keep writing on the website like nothing happened and anyone that take offence to that will be banned?

Anyway, I think the rule will blow up on it's own, next time there's a controversy that's even slightly political (like the cyberpunk 2077 joke) the only way to stay apolitical would be to stay silent and I don't think contributor will do that. You might want to put a firewall between what they do on the escapist and outside, but they're still the same person.

I mean, it's a vague as fuck rule to the point where even questioning Russ right now could be taken as breaking it. Hence my trepidation in directly posting about it. I know a couple of the mods are viewing it as "criticism of their person", but even they are waiting on the new COC, and not all the mods hold the same interpretations of the vague as fuck rules.

Welcome back Russ, I'm thrilled to see that my favorite gaming mag is back under old management. I'd been resigning myself to the thought that I'd check back in and the site wouldn't even be here anymore. If you decide to bring back the Publisher's Club, I'll be first in line to sign back up!

vallorn:
it's a vague as fuck rule

The vast majority of forum members avoid breaking this rule every day. If you continue to have trouble with it, you are welcome to leave.

Russ Pitts:

vallorn:
it's a vague as fuck rule

The vast majority of forum members avoid breaking this rule every day. If you continue to have trouble with it, you are welcome to leave.

That's more likely because nothing really contentious or noteworthy has been posted since the revival of content. We won't really know how people are interpreting the new wording until an author posts something that actually generates conversation.

For my part I really don't know how to interpret "criticism" in the broad terms provided. Are we talking criticism as a person, criticism of ideas, criticism of how ideas are presented, how they're developed or interpreted... and then what if we get into something intrinsic to an author. Bob is all about Nintendo, so if he posts a very personal video on nintendo with reference to himself, is then criticizing an idea he presents tantamount to criticizing him? Is me questioning the rule as it has been stated tantamount to criticizing you?

Russ Pitts:

vallorn:
it's a vague as fuck rule

The vast majority of forum members avoid breaking this rule every day. If you continue to have trouble with it, you are welcome to leave.

image

EvilRoy:

Russ Pitts:

vallorn:
it's a vague as fuck rule

The vast majority of forum members avoid breaking this rule every day. If you continue to have trouble with it, you are welcome to leave.

That's more likely because nothing really contentious or noteworthy has been posted since the revival of content. We won't really know how people are interpreting the new wording until an author posts something that actually generates conversation.

For my part I really don't know how to interpret "criticism" in the broad terms provided. Are we talking criticism as a person, criticism of ideas, criticism of how ideas are presented, how they're developed or interpreted... and then what if we get into something intrinsic to an author. Bob is all about Nintendo, so if he posts a very personal video on nintendo with reference to himself, is then criticizing an idea he presents tantamount to criticizing him? Is me questioning the rule as it has been stated tantamount to criticizing you?

This is exactly what I was trying to say, thank you.

image

Oh.

I mean, all this time I didn't know I was just a head-in-ass societal reject who would rather burn the game industry down than share it with women, or people of color, or people like some PAX audience and apparently Russ, just because I'm not left enough.

Buy, hey! I guess if you dole out an impassioned diatribe to people who already agree with you, then it must be true. That's great. Really brave. Shows a truly nuanced understanding of your ideological opponents too.

What the hell happened to you? Were you always like this? Even back during the podcast days?

Is this what was meant by getting the politics out? Just making your particular brand of progressivism the dominant one?

Gonna go on some witch hunts next? You know, really get in there deep and excise the cancerous elements in your community? Make it nice and pure?

Jesus, man.

And to think I was actually hopeful about you coming back.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
*sigh* you'll never learn.
Leaving politics at the door is an utopian idea and given whom you introduced as part of the team you already have heavy leaning roster. With loud mouthed, opinionated, one tracked people, with history of lack of reason and self-control. That will instantly deteriorate into 'gag anyone who points out the bias' game, followed by round up the wagons and fortify position by authors themselves (they only present their own point of view, so what everyone in the house has the same view!).

Get on board or invite contrarian people and give them equal footing to discuss their point of views and exchange arguments, eg. recently Jose Vargas vs. Jeremy Hambly on Battlefront V.
Get together in one room Carl Benjamin and Anita Sarkeesian and have them talk about what games they enjoy playing, see if they can find any common ground in gaming as a hobby, have Jim Sterling talk to Sean Murray, have Yong Yea and Troy Leavitt discuss publishing practices etc. Just don't invite active employed developers, publishers, gaming press members etc. cause that is done aplenty and you will not outcompete established brands. Hell maybe you'll in the end actually start building bridges in the community split over dumb buzz words and dehumanizing labels. You have comedy covered, you could provide agora for exchange of thoughts and then provide, accurate, aggregated information board tracking the schedules, releases etc.

Maybe I am too old but I use to expect that from mass media. Provide platform to discuss opposite takes on the subject. Not transmit and enhance single narrative, as they commonly do now - 'spoon feeding' their audience. Just provide a proving grounds and moderate discussion taking place. Try and veer between clashing points of view and personalities trying to point out the common ground opposite parties might share but lose sight of or never notice in their fervour. Let audience decide whom they find right and who was wrong.

image

Though I didn't predict complete lack of propriety and Patrick Soderlund's grade lack of self-awareness and random berating of audience. Just take notice that the guy from EA had multi million $ golden parachute to land and keep on sipping luxurious drinks, you have soiled hands and nothing to show for it.
What was the point?

PS. Also missed opportunity to put 'Rape jokes are a RIOT', as subtitle to that 'Digest'.
PS2. Choosing that 'news' about RIOT as a initial story was asinine at best. Since actual gamers are in love-hate relationship with RIOT since a decade now (is escapist ment to be a gossip portal now? people have social media for that...). What RIOT higher-up did was a horrid cringe (show me single CEO in corporation that isn't cringe in internal meetings...) what is happening now in RIOT (and yesterday hidden camera footage leaked out) is even more cringe on systemic scale but opposite direction. Welcome to flat out 'The Sun' level of yellow paper journalism unrelated to games and gamers you committed to (and 'NO', personal retardation of game creators/directors etc. and their political leanings and beliefs are not 'gaming' related).

Russ Pitts:
The vast majority of forum members avoid breaking this rule every day. If you continue to have trouble with it, you are welcome to leave.

As a fellow admin, I understand actually where this rule is coming from. And also, this is indeed your house. You bought it. You own it. No one can tell you what to do here.

Having said that, I really do think that this will stifle discussion. Can people follow the rule? Absolutely. The question isn't whether people can follow it or not though. It's whether it should be there in the first place. What will be the consequences of the rule?

I understand that you want sorely to get back to how things were and you're tired of all this meaningless political BS that gets spewed around like candy these days, but I strongly believe that this simply is not the way to fight it. People will be assholes no matter what rules you put up. You cannot stop it. And trying to avoid any and all criticism will also punish those who might actually be on your side.

The law is a blunt instrument and should be used as such. It's not the sole tool you should rely on. If you wish to foster the community, you need to, of course, have care when dealing with them.

The Lunatic:
Right-wing opinions in general. Very few safe and welcoming homes for that these days.

You know where to find us. Although we're not just for right-wing opinions.

LostGryphon:
Oh.

I mean, all this time I didn't know I was just a head-in-ass societal reject who would rather burn the game industry down than share it with women, or people of color, or people like some PAX audience and apparently Russ, just because I'm not left enough.

I mean, it's especially rich when you look at the line up of people who he's announced to join the staff.

All straight white people. Mostly men.

Hmm.

If y'all are done seeing how far you can poke the bear, I'm calling this thread officially under Rule #1, which reads:

"We want Escapist Magazine to be a welcoming and safe place for creators and contributors of all backgrounds. Therefore criticism, harassment, shaming, or any action deemed by the moderators or staff to be inflammatory or abusive towards an Escapist Magazine staff member, contributor, or moderator is expressly forbidden. Anyone hired to work for, contribute to, or represent Escapist Magazine has been de facto approved of by management. If you take issue with the actions of a member of our staff, a contributor, or a moderator, you may send a letter to the editor. The forum is not the proper place for such activity, and it will be moderated harshly. "

Feel free to post disagreements, or alternative points of view. Insults, attacks, or ad-hominems will not be tolerated and will be moderated harshly.

The full, revised Forum CoC will be up soon.

Cheers.

Russ Pitts:
If y'all are done seeing how far you can poke the bear, I'm calling this thread officially under Rule #1, which reads:

"We want Escapist Magazine to be a welcoming and safe place for creators and contributors of all backgrounds. Therefore criticism, harassment, shaming, or any action deemed by the moderators or staff to be inflammatory or abusive towards an Escapist Magazine staff member, contributor, or moderator is expressly forbidden. Anyone hired to work for, contribute to, or represent Escapist Magazine has been de facto approved of by management. If you take issue with the actions of a member of our staff, a contributor, or a moderator, you may send a letter to the editor. The forum is not the proper place for such activity, and it will be moderated harshly. "

Feel free to post disagreements, or alternative points of view. Insults, attacks, or ad-hominems will not be tolerated and will be moderated harshly.

The full, revised Forum CoC will be up soon.

Cheers.

Who is 'the editor' and what is her/his e-mail address that should be used in such circumstances?
What's the policy on 'open letters' as of keeping transparency of what has been sent and upon consent of the other side making public the reply as well?
Would you be addressing questions about actions ie. you take (eg. justification of chosen topics, not opinions, just why take The Escapist in such direction and not another) - of course not ad hominems ie. why you are white or male etc.
What is CoC to moderators and what system you created to keep them in check?
Are you going to revise their past actions when they were unsupervised and remove the abusers a posteriori or they get clean slate treatment?
Are you aware, that appeal system has been broken for ~2 years now and dysfunctional impromptu appeal possibility was private contact coterie based, which contributed greatly to utter degeneration of any civil dialogue on divisive topics?

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Who is 'the editor' and what is her/his e-mail address that should be used in such circumstances?

editorATescapistmagazineDOTcom

What's the policy on 'open letters' as of keeping transparency of what has been sent and upon consent of the other side making public the reply as well?

Anything posted to the forums must adhere to the forum CoC.

Would you be addressing questions about actions ie. you take (eg. justification of chosen topics, not opinions, just why take The Escapist in such direction and not another) - of course not ad hominems ie. why you are white or male etc.

This is addressed in the CoC.

What is CoC to moderators and what system you created to keep them in check?

Moderators are empowered to enforce the CoC. Appeals exist to address improper or inappropriate moderation. Rule 0 exists to address anything else.

Are you going to revise their past actions ... ?

No.

Are you aware, that appeal system has been broken for ~2 years now and dysfunctional impromptu appeal possibility was private contact coterie based, which contributed greatly to utter degeneration of any civil dialogue on divisive topics?

See Rule 0.

Russ Pitts:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Who is 'the editor' and what is her/his e-mail address that should be used in such circumstances?

editorATescapistmagazineDOTcom

What's the policy on 'open letters' as of keeping transparency of what has been sent and upon consent of the other side making public the reply as well?

Anything posted to the forums must adhere to the forum CoC.

Would you be addressing questions about actions ie. you take (eg. justification of chosen topics, not opinions, just why take The Escapist in such direction and not another) - of course not ad hominems ie. why you are white or male etc.

This is addressed in the CoC.

What is CoC to moderators and what system you created to keep them in check?

Moderators are empowered to enforce the CoC. Appeals exist to address improper or inappropriate moderation. Rule 0 exists to address anything else.

Are you going to revise their past actions ... ?

No.

Are you aware, that appeal system has been broken for ~2 years now and dysfunctional impromptu appeal possibility was private contact coterie based, which contributed greatly to utter degeneration of any civil dialogue on divisive topics?

See Rule 0.

Ok awaiting your answers then, since CoC doesn't state that portal's audience should not ask any questions. That unless asking why did creator do something is also forbidden (put that in there too then).
Appeals don't exist or rather do not work, unless you fixed the system ( I am in no position to test it). That's why I asked if you are aware it was broken, how long it was broken and that only informal impromptu ways were used. Is it fixed?
It also comes down to what you called yourself 'improper or inappropriate moderation', it has been prevalent, ie. newcomer on forums coming and asking a question, 'old guard' jumping on him/her giving a snide, insulting and provoking answer. Newcomer complaining about it, moderator stepping in to punish newcomer (and anyone 'attacking' the old guard member) for complaining about lack of moderation... Newcomer not posting ever again.
From your reaction I gather moderators get clean slate treatment.

I don't really see how rule 0 applies to this. It isn't ment to keep people in the dark but to prevent annoying repeated questioning of explained rules and DM action that don't seem to follow these rules (during the adventure, DM that slaps people with rule 0 afterwards just ends up playing with himself in the corner of his very empty room). As much as I see an idea to run a business with rule 0 nailed to the mast as suicidal, it's your company. However overreaching with rule 0 just seems pointless, you could as well just make the forum and thus audience voice about your company, private. Accessed only via invite. Only to people you are sure, that have no questions to you and will be in full resonance with your world views. It would be far less antagonizing and disparaging and would achieve same goal.

But it's your money after all. Good luck.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here