Did you find this helpful?
Yes
48.8% (1202)
48.8% (1202)
No
3.7% (91)
3.7% (91)
Never put up irrelevant options, it's stupid and means that you won't get the results you created the poll for.
45.6% (1123)
45.6% (1123)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The Banhammer and You: A User's Guide to the Forums

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
 

PetitDemon:
Just signed up and read the rules.

Why are there rules against discussing pornography and pedophilia on this site?
I can obviously understand not posting porn or questionable things of that nature. But not being able to discuss it seems a bit... excessive.

Though I'm a new poster, so I don't really know why.

According to the Code of Conduct the forums are meant to be PG-13, it may be slightly hard to believe with the content of some of the videos here but there you go. I guess the staff think those two subjects are a little too far over the line to allow, that and the latter caused a spate of flame wars on this site before discussion was banned.

Wow, you really could have fooled me about PG-13 with some of the things that Yahtzee an Jim Sterling say and do.

But I can definitely at least understand with the pedophilia thing. It's a pretty sensitive subject.
And in some cases, pornography, too.

Thanks for helping me learn.

JoJo:

PetitDemon:
Just signed up and read the rules.

Why are there rules against discussing pornography and pedophilia on this site?
I can obviously understand not posting porn or questionable things of that nature. But not being able to discuss it seems a bit... excessive.

Though I'm a new poster, so I don't really know why.

According to the Code of Conduct the forums are meant to be PG-13, it may be slightly hard to believe with the content of some of the videos here but there you go. I guess the staff think those two subjects are a little too far over the line to allow, that and the latter caused a spate of flame wars on this site before discussion was banned.

If you're saying they banned a topic due to flamewars, I don't believe you.
Because if that were true, there are plenty of other topics that would be banned too for the same reason. (GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.)

But if you're not saying that and I've misunderstood, then nevermind me.

PetitDemon:
(Snip).

IceForce:
(Snip).

v v v

(...)including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material(...)

As long as you don't do that in a post about the subject, you're fine. Spoiler anything with (NSFW) if you think it's approaching those things (but obviously doesn't cross the line). "Including" just means actually containing offending material in the actual post. Don't say that you've committed an illegal act or use AdBlocker and don't recommend it to anybody else.

The only thing really consistently gets PG-13 here is the standard of conversation, critical thinking and general behaviour, but I guess it could be a lot worse if we didn't have rules like that. So don't get sucked into arguments, just be cordial and honest and you should be fine.

IceForce:

JoJo:

PetitDemon:
Just signed up and read the rules.

Why are there rules against discussing pornography and pedophilia on this site?
I can obviously understand not posting porn or questionable things of that nature. But not being able to discuss it seems a bit... excessive.

Though I'm a new poster, so I don't really know why.

According to the Code of Conduct the forums are meant to be PG-13, it may be slightly hard to believe with the content of some of the videos here but there you go. I guess the staff think those two subjects are a little too far over the line to allow, that and the latter caused a spate of flame wars on this site before discussion was banned.

If you're saying they banned a topic due to flamewars, I don't believe you.
Because if that were true, there are plenty of other topics that would be banned too for the same reason. (GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.)

But if you're not saying that and I've misunderstood, then nevermind me.

Flame wars were the final trigger that got those topics specifically banned in the CoC but it wasn't that alone, the staff also (probably rightfully) believed that they weren't appropriate or relevant for discussion on a PG-13 gaming forum. The same cannot be said for Anita Sarkeesian or Gamergate, as much as some people wish otherwise.

Fappy:
Holy crap, looks like you put a lot of work into this.

Personally, I have never been a fan of review scores. When I worked for my college paper I included them because that was the paper's policy, but once I began writing reviews on my own time I opted not to use them. I don't like them for a number of reasons you could probably guess right off the top of your head, but I am not wholly against their use when done right.

Though the sample size is rather narrow for the strict 4 to 5 star rating system, I am surprised to see it fall so neatly in-line with those that use broader systems. I've always thought that using a tighter rating system would make the scoring far less arbitrary and result in more honest scoring. Just look at GameInformer if you want to see the most arbitrary review scores of all time (what the fuck differentiates 97.3% from 97.5%?!).

I kind of think the age of review scores is beginning to wane, however. More and more people are beginning to get their information from previously unconventional sources (mostly Youtube) and many more are suckers for pre-order culture, which circumvent the review process entirely. Outside of parents looking for Christmas gifts for their kids, I don't see it a very useful consumer tool these days. All it really seems to do is give fanboys something to rage about.

Would a moderator please be as kind as to tell us (i.e. me) what part of the quoted post constitutes a bannable offense?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.872132-In-defense-of-the-number-a-note-on-video-game-review-scores#21874803

I'm genuinely curious because I don't see anything in that post that violates the Code of Conduct.

I am deeply concerned about the seeming inconsistency and heavy handedness of moderation on this forum. The moderators seem to be able to hand out penalties for any reason they please, with minimal distinction between what constitutes a valid critique and an insult.

The instruction that you need to provide a reason for your critique is flawed, because by what metrics are these reasons judged as valid?

And how vague exactly must a condemnation of a group be, with reasons provided, to evade the "insult other users" rule? The difference seems to boil down to semantics and nothing else.

Likewise, the rules against "trolling" seems to give the moderators carte blanché to remove nearly anything that could even be remotely construed as confrontational, as well as inflict a nearly permanent penalty (6 months without a warning? That's madness) for what boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than a clear intentional breach of the code of conduct.

We cannot possibly know. Likewise for posts that "incite" inappropriate responses, where only every other post seems to be moderated.

And no, if you slap a warning on me for this you only prove the point I'm making. Being able to discuss the practises of the moderating team in a public environment is necessary to maintain a good atmosphere where users feel that they can engage in discussion without fear of sudden reprisal for "transgressions".

The appeals process seems to have no impact whatsoever, since it's impossible to gauge if anything forwarded to the moderators through it is even remotely considered in the application of the moderating policies. I have not in a single communique with them felt that they even remotely considered overturning a penalty or even be willing to consider the context of the post moderated.

I made a topic a while ago where I got moderated 3 times, the last time seemingly for making the topic in the first place. The other two times for replying in a snarky manner to users that insulted me, albeit not directly.

Apparently it's not permitted to point out how poorly a person comes across for expressing glee over someone else being a target of moderation?

Mutant1988:

Would a moderator please be as kind as to tell us (i.e. me) what part of the quoted post constitutes a bannable offense?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.872132-In-defense-of-the-number-a-note-on-video-game-review-scores#21874803

It's a joke done by the Tech Team.... if you go through the thread you should see Staff members who are apparently banned too.

I can assure you neither them or Fappy are actually banned.

sky14kemea:

It's a joke done by the Tech Team.... if you go through the thread you should see Staff members who are apparently banned too.

I can assure you neither them or Fappy are actually banned.

That's... Really not that funny. Considering how severe a ban is considered on this forum (And how absurdly easy it seems to accrue penalties), I think it sends the wrong message to have the moderators joke around with "fake" bans.

But what do I know - I have no sense of humour at all. Especially not in regards to policy enforcement or faulty rhetoric.

The rest of my critique still applies though.

Mutant1988:

sky14kemea:

It's a joke done by the Tech Team.... if you go through the thread you should see Staff members who are apparently banned too.

I can assure you neither them or Fappy are actually banned.

That's... Really not that funny. Considering how severe a ban is considered on this forum (And how absurdly easy it seems to accrue penalties), I think it sends the wrong message to have the moderators joke around with "fake" bans.

But what do I know - I have no sense of humour at all. Especially not in regards to policy enforcement or faulty rhetoric.

Tech Team =/= Moderators.

The Techies are actual Staff members. We (The moderators) have no say in what they do or what pranks they want to pull. If you want to complain about their joke then please file a ticket.

Mutant1988:

sky14kemea:

It's a joke done by the Tech Team.... if you go through the thread you should see Staff members who are apparently banned too.

I can assure you neither them or Fappy are actually banned.

That's... Really not that funny. Considering how severe a ban is considered on this forum (And how absurdly easy it seems to accrue penalties), I think it sends the wrong message to have the moderators joke around with "fake" bans.

But what do I know - I have no sense of humour at all. Especially not in regards to policy enforcement or faulty rhetoric.

It wasn't done by the moderators. It was done by the Tech Team.

Also, many users have posted regularly on these forums for years without getting a single warning, and in the past year or so the rules have been made increasingly lenient (though the Code of Conduct has not entirely been updated to reflect said changes).

sky14kemea:

Tech Team =/= Moderators.

The Techies are actual Staff members. We (The moderators) have no say in what they do or what pranks they want to pull. If you want to complain about their joke then please file a ticket.

Eh, it doesn't much matter to the discussion I want to have. But yeah, would be nice if they made a note that someone "fell" for the joke or whatever point it was supposed to serve.

Very confusing, is what it is.

shrekfan246:

Also, many users have posted regularly on these forums for years without getting a single warning, and in the past year or so the rules have been made increasingly lenient (though the Code of Conduct has not entirely been updated to reflect said changes).

Yes, which is why posts made to incite inappropriate replies from me goes without penalty while I get punished for responding.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.870173-Overkill-Studios-The-developers-of-Payday-2-Asks-for-20-donations?page=2#21800852

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.870173-Overkill-Studios-The-developers-of-Payday-2-Asks-for-20-donations?page=2

Cue "Use the report button if you have an issue with someone else's posts".

I did. I also used the appeals function, saying pretty much the same things as below.

I fail to see how the first is a violation of the rules when the user did not read what I wrote but just posted to leave a message to spite me. But apparently I was in the wrong to reply to him, while he was being perfectly civil. Right?

The second, I reply to a user that his behaviour reflects poorly on him as a person. Is that against the rules? I mean, more so than expressing glee that I get moderated and insinuating that I'm a bit of a "goob" about it?

"If OP can't be civil." Yes. I'm the only one not being civil in that topic, right? Just posting to express spite is a-okay, as is insinuating that I'm an idiot (Very first reply in the topic).

But yeah, go on and insist that I'm at fault. Or rather, that I'm solely at fault. Inconsistency is my complaint. As is the semantic interpretations of what is or isn't a violation of "civility" or what have you. So yeah, I'd argue that being hit with 3 freaking warnings in one topic, while others get of scot free, is rather aggravating.

But that's just me, a user 1 warning away from suspension. The last one because I called a user a moron for dismissing others (Pretty much everyone that disagrees with him) as morons. But I suppose being specific makes my remark much more offensive, right? It's bad to call one user a moron with a stated reason, far worse than calling everyone a moron with no reason.

It's to the point where you could probably ban me right now for anything I've posted, because of "insulting implication" or "incitement to inappropriate responses". Or just for challenging the moderators and airing my grievances outside of the designated appeals process. Feel free to skim through the Hatred topic, I'm sure you could find something juicy there.

It does feel like a lose/lose scenario for me as a poster.

Forgive my passionate critique, I'm just a bit paranoid of being suspended at any moment.

Mutant1988:

I fail to see how the first is a violation of the rules when the user did not read what I wrote but just posted to leave a message to spite me. But apparently I was in the wrong to reply to him, while he was being perfectly civil. Right?

Other people skirting by the rules does not give you permission to break them.

The second, I reply to a user that his behaviour reflects poorly on him as a person. Is that against the rules? I mean, more so than expressing glee that I get moderated and insinuating that I'm a bit of a "goob" about it?

Again, other people breaking the rules does not give you permission to do the same.

But yeah, go on and insist that I'm at fault. Or rather, that I'm solely at fault. Inconsistency is my complaint. As is the semantic interpretations of what is or isn't a violation of "civility" or what have you. So yeah, I'd argue that being hit with 3 freaking warnings in one topic, while others get of scot free, is rather aggravating.

First of all, I was insisting no such thing. Reign it in, please.

Second, if you have problems with the way moderation is handled, you can always report it to the higher-ups. Even if you don't get your own warnings turned over, you might get the other posts moderated in kind. The mods have had a very busy time of things lately and they tend to only really scrutinize posts that actually get reported. And if a post has been reported but gets cleared by one moderator for whatever reason, the chances are high that it won't be moderated unless it is brought up directly to a staff member who deems it worthy of being handled.

But that's just me, a user 1 warning away from suspension. The last one because I called a user a moron for dismissing others (Pretty much everyone that disagrees with him) as morons. But I suppose being specific makes my remark much more offensive, right? It's bad to call one user a moron with a stated reason, far worse than calling everyone a moron with no reason.

I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat myself, but other people breaking the rules doesn't give you permission to do the same.

Forgive my passionate critique, I'm just a bit paranoid of being suspended at any moment.

Perhaps this is a simplistic suggestion, but avoid making posts that break the rules (I know, I know). Don't insult other users, regardless of how much you might think they deserve it. "They started it" isn't an excuse that will get you any sympathy around here. I've been involved in a great many snarky, heated arguments on these forums and have come through all of them without being warned at all, because I know that when I'm about to type something that crosses the line it's time for me to take a step back. And if it's difficult for you to recognize where that line might be (which is perfectly fair right now, to be honest), then just try to be extra careful.

I don't think my replies constitute a breach of the rules (Outside of the very first reply, which was a violation). Calling in question someone's reading ability when they purposefully post solely to spite while seemingly ignoring what's written is not an insult - It's an observation.

Posting that it reflects poorly on a person to express glee over the moderation of another user is not an insult either - It's also an observation.

I've never used the justification "They started it", but I'm referencing the principle as a reason for why this one-sided moderation is especially aggravating. Especially when, given the formulation of the rules, what they wrote could easily be interpreted as solely made to incite inappropriate replies.

Which really, if they use the reasoning that I'm not allowed to if they did it first, why then am I the only one being penalized? Isn't the implication of that statement that there's two wrongs ("- does not make a right")? Apparently not.

shrekfan246:

Perhaps this is a simplistic suggestion, but avoid making posts that break the rules (I know, I know).

I don't know what is considered a violation of the rules at any given time, because there doesn't seem to be any consistency and the rules allow the moderators to moderate almost anything, at will.

Seriously. Calling a group by an insulting name - A-okay (Apparently, seeing how that one post I'm referring to is still not moderated). Calling a user by the same name - Nope. Even though the group could easily apply just as well to ANY user. And the Code of Conduct even accounts for that! Don't say anything, ever, that could ever be considered offensive. Not even with an explanation or employment of the same insulting logic as the user you reply to. Again, not saying that two wrongs makes a right - But a demonstration of error can make a user reconsider how he acts. i.e, don't call people a moron while acting like one. Which he did, by my definition and with the reasoning to draw that conclusion stated.

Of course, my error was to not write it as "I think you're the one acting moronic in doing etc, because etc". It's not okay to call someone a racist. But it is okay to say that what they say (By extension, do) is racist, with stated reasons. Which is different somehow?

shrekfan246:

I've been involved in a great many snarky, heated arguments on these forums and have come through all of them without being warned at all, because I know that when I'm about to type something that crosses the line it's time for me to take a step back. And if it's difficult for you to recognize where that line might be (which is perfectly fair right now, to be honest), then just try to be extra careful.

In your opinion, does what I write in those post cross a line?

The fact that I need to be careful is not really a positive quality of the forum. I'd much rather have less ambiguous rules and consistent enforcement of them. The fact that I can be suspended for any error at this point does not make me feel super duper.

Hell, at least word filters indicate what words not to use, in any context. That's consistent, if kinda stupid most of the time.

But no such thing here and the wrong configuration of the same basic message can get you nearly permanent warnings (6 months without a warning to go away), suspensions and permanent bans.

Mutant1988:
Calling in question someone's reading ability when they purposefully post solely to spite while seemingly ignoring what's written is not an insult - It's an observation.

Posting that it reflects poorly on a person to express glee over the moderation of another user is not an insult either - It's also an observation.

It's in the way you phrase things. Observations and insults aren't mutually exclusive things.

I've never used the justification "They started it", but I'm referencing the principle as a reason for why this one-sided moderation is especially aggravating. Especially when, given the formulation of the rules, what they wrote could easily be interpreted as solely made to incite inappropriate replies.

Which really, if they use the reasoning that I'm not allowed to if they did it first, why then am I the only one being penalized? Isn't the implication of that statement that there's two wrongs ("- does not make a right")? Apparently not.

Again, if you have problems with the way moderation is handled, you are free to report your complaints to the higher-ups, in particular the Community Manager @ffronw

The moderators are just people, there aren't a great many of them at the moment, and they have a large number of posts to go through on a daily basis. They're going to make mistakes, they're going to miss things, and they're occasionally going to clear things that can be construed as breaking the rules. Alternatively, things that may seem like they break the rules to you or me might technically get through a loophole in the way the Code of Conduct is enforced; I know that I personally have had many problems with certain posts in the past that were technically deemed as not breaking any rules.

I don't know what is considered a violation of the rules at any given time, because there doesn't seem to be any consistency and the rules allow the moderators to moderate almost anything, at will.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but even as someone who is not on the moderation team I can assure that that is not and has never been the case.

Seriously. Calling a group by an insulting name - A-okay (Apparently, seeing how that one post I'm referring to is still not moderated). Calling a user by the same name - Nope. Even though the group could easily apply just as well to ANY user. And the Code of Conduct even accounts for that!

Yes, there are loopholes. I believe that is something the current CM has been working to remedy, but they are not having an easy time of it.

Don't say anything, ever, that could ever be considered offensive. Not even with an explanation or employment of the same insulting logic as the user you reply to. Again, not saying that two wrongs makes a right - But a demonstration of error can make a user reconsider how he acts. i.e, don't call people a moron while acting like one. Which he did, by my definition and with the reasoning to draw that conclusion stated.

Again, it's in the way you phrase things. You can call out someone's error without directly saying they're stupid, or insinuating that they have an awful personality because of "self-congratulatory spitefulness".

Of course, my error was to not write it as "I think you're the one acting moronic in doing etc, because etc". It's not okay to call someone a racist. But it is okay to say that what they say (By extension, do) is racist, with stated reasons. Which is different somehow?

Honestly, I can't really comment on that particular loophole. I've voiced my own displeasure with it to people on the moderation team in the past. But the proper answer in that situation would just be to reword your post entirely until you're not calling the other person a moron or passive-aggressively insinuating that all they're trying to do is rile you up. If people are actively trying to work you up, the worst response you can give them is to actually get worked up.

In your opinion, does what I write in those post cross a line?

That's not really my place to say.

If you want my complete honesty, then I'm unsure whether I consider those posts to be directly breaking the rules, but there's also the issue of context. You admitted that you were getting angry in the thread and that people who were acting condescending or belittling could expect to receive the same. That gives the implication that you don't care about breaking the rules. In addition, the posts you were warned for most certainly contained "combative, aggressive, or demeaning language" and while I'd really rather not get into a circular discussion about why other people didn't get moderated when you did, the simple fact remains that none of us normal users are entitled to have free reign testing the rules. While the closing comment of your thread may have been worded poorly itself, as the OP of a thread if you cannot remain civil in the conversation throughout then the moderators or staff are well within their power to shut your thread down. You're not the first person who has received multiple warnings at once and had a thread shut down because it spiraled out of control.

The fact that I need to be careful is not really a positive quality of the forum. I'd much rather have less ambiguous rules and consistent enforcement of them. The fact that I can be suspended for any error at this point does not make me feel super duper.

You're not supposed to "feel super duper". If it makes you feel any better, the moderators don't particularly enjoy needing to hand out warnings either. On this, I agree and disagree with you, because the current primary problem is one of the Code of Conduct not reflecting how the rules are being enforced anymore. It's something that is being worked on, but is going to provide many problems for the userbase of this website until it can be cleared up. However, I personally believe that everyone should be careful anyway. Passive-aggressiveness aside, the thing that made this forum stand out to me when I joined and throughout the years I've been here has been the fact that people couldn't just make flyby posts and run off.

Consistency is never going to be uniform across the website. Even going back to 2008 or earlier, you can occasionally find threads that have low content posts which were never moderated. The moderators rely on users to report posts, and even within the confines of the rules certain moderators are going to interpret certain posts slightly differently. If you're unsure whether a post you want to make will break the rules or not, the best course of action is to either not make the post or try to reword it.

Mutant1988:
Inconsistency is my complaint.

Welcome to life on The Escapist forums. Here is your complimentary gift bag and tote box.

In all seriousness, you may be interested in the conversation happening at this link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/chat/Moderation-Team

IceForce:

Mutant1988:
Inconsistency is my complaint.

Welcome to life on The Escapist forums. Here is your complimentary gift bag and tote box.

In all seriousness, you may be interested in the conversation happening at this link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/chat/Moderation-Team

Meh, I think I've griped enough about this. As is, what I'm saying is probably already dismissed as completely self serving justifications for poor behaviour.

Might check it out later when I can be bothered to.

I'm having issues trying to decipher the seeming lack of constancy when it comes to issuing penalties for violations of the Code of Conduct.

One member had two threads[1][2] closed and they received a warning for each thread, being cited for "low content". A different member had their thread[3] closed. Now, by my layman's understanding, the third thread appears to have far less content that the first two and it seemed to have deliberately misleading title, yet they did not receive any penalty whatsoever.

So, can someone please elaborate why the first user received 2 warnings, and the second did not receive any?

[1] http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.881387-OT-Zombi-PS4-XBO-PC-Wii-U-Zombi-U
[2] http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.881394-OT-Rare-Replay-Xbox-One
[3] http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.881353-A-Completely-Normal-Thread

madwarper:
(Snip).

That was an oversight that has now been rectified.

Barbas:

madwarper:
(Snip).

That was an oversight that has now been rectified.

I hope you don't mind me saying, but I'm a bit confused by this 'oversight'.

You posted in the latter of the threads above, three times, but you didn't notice at the time that the thread was low-content? And you didn't rectify it until someone raised it in this thread?

I'm not meaning to be rude, and certainly not meaning to tell a moderator how they should be doing their job, but I personally don't think it's a very good idea for a moderator go messing about in an obviously low-content thread and then failing to issue a warning until someone asks about it a few days later.

Like I say, not meaning to be rude. And it's good that this was rectified. But this wasn't the best way to go about this, imo.

I've seen people being banned for advertisment, and it is stated in forum rules. That's understandable.

But i don't understand why forum doesn't have a section for non-commercial productivity of users. Songs they write, drawings they make, maps/models/mods for games they create etc.

I also was highly surprised by "don't comment any user reviews if they're older than month". It's sad cause it leaves you out everything that was posted when you wasn't here.

InfernalGrape:
I've seen people being banned for advertisment, and it is stated in forum rules. That's understandable.

But i don't understand why forum doesn't have a section for non-commercial productivity of users. Songs they write, drawings they make, maps/models/mods for games they create etc.

I also was highly surprised by "don't comment any user reviews if they're older than month". It's sad cause it leaves you out everything that was posted when you wasn't here.

Advertising for a commercial enterprise like a Kickstarter, or asking for donations in forum threads, is generally frowned on. If it's someone's first mistake and they're not asking anyone to follow a link (e.g. to their website or a shifty web page) or subscribe to anything (e.g. a YouTube channel), the mods usually err on the side of leniency. Everyone is also given the chance to appeal mod actions against their account, and the staff have overturned moderator decisions in the past after appeals have been made.

You're quite welcome to link your profile on your YouTube channel, though - the tech team added the functionality to link your most recent uploads - and there's also The Creative Society for what you've described.

Thanks for explanation; and i didn't know about The Creative Society, i'll check that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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