New Code of Conduct

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

CoC...
CoC's never change.
Much.
I've lost count how many times they've been changed, actually.

But yeah, looks good and I guess in regards of discussing illegal stuff, the site would adhere to US laws as it's based in the US.

LifeCharacter:

n0e:
If anything else, being a dick towards a group of folks of any sort is frowned upon. By frowned upon, I mean my banhammer will see action if they do it.

Well, so long as it's enforced as such that's fine, though I'd still suggest for it to be included so that people know they don't have to worry about it here anymore. The Escapist hasn't exactly been the best place in that regard.

Please link to some examples of clear LGBT discrimination on this forum that went unchecked by moderators to support your claims. Otherwise, it can safely be assumed that what you're trying to do here is slant the moderation in your preferred direction whenever this comes up as part of a valid discussion topic. Example: the Pillars of Eternity thread from months ago. Disagreeing with people on an issue gets heated at times, but in no way should it be classified as "hate" or "discrimination" by default just because someone claims it makes them feel "unsafe". A public internet forum isn't a safe space where you should be able to silence dissenting views like that.

StreamerDarkly:
Please link to some examples of clear LGBT discrimination from the regulars on this forum to support your claims. Otherwise, it can safely be assumed that what you're trying to do is slant the moderation in your preferred direction whenever this comes up as part of a valid discussion topic.

Well, I'd say it's less slanting it in my preferred direction than making it clear what the slant is (based on n0e's response to it) and that particular slant being just a generally preferred direction, though you're welcome to make an argument as to why making homophobic and transphobic remarks against the rules in the same way sexist and racist remarks are isn't preferred.

Example: the Pillars of Eternity thread from months ago. Disagreeing with people on an issue gets heated at times, but in no way should it be classified as "hate" or "discrimination" by default just because someone claims it makes them feel "unsafe". A public internet forum isn't a safe space where you should be able to silence dissenting views like that.

Well you should be happy to know that "disagreeing with people" is not inherently a homophobic or transphobic remark. Though why you felt the need to bring up safe spaces is beyond me. Is disallowing homophobic and transphobic remarks making a safe space to you? If it is, you should be taking issue with the racist and sexist remarks part of the current CoC, since they're serving the same purpose, but for demographics people are less openly hostile to.

Though you seem to have some misconceptions about forums on the internet, namely that they're somehow "public" and antithetical to "safe spaces." They're not, they're very much private. They just happen to be owned by people who welcome everyone until you give them a reason to kick you out. And they're very much safe spaces, because they moderate their community and remove that which they deem is unacceptable.

WRT old threads being automatically locked, will those threads also be automatically deleted like when a moderator manually locks a thread?

LifeCharacter:
Well you should be happy to know that "disagreeing with people" is not inherently a homophobic or transphobic remark. Though why you felt the need to bring up safe spaces is beyond me. Is disallowing homophobic and transphobic remarks making a safe space to you? If it is, you should be taking issue with the racist and sexist remarks part of the current CoC, since they're serving the same purpose, but for demographics people are less openly hostile to.

I felt the need to bring it up because safety is a word that was specifically used in the CoC. It's a misnomer when you stretch its definition to include anything that can make person feel uncomfortable, such as an internet argument. It evokes a sense of serious physical danger when none is present, and the potential for psychological trauma that's also used to justify it has been overblown time and time again as a means to give special snowflakes more rights than regular snowflakes.

LifeCharacter:
Though you seem to have some misconceptions about forums on the internet, namely that they're somehow "public" and antithetical to "safe spaces." They're not, they're very much private. They just happen to be owned by people who welcome everyone until you give them a reason to kick you out. And they're very much safe spaces, because they moderate their community and remove that which they deem is unacceptable.

It's public in that anyone can anonymously join this forum and participate in the discussion regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or nationality. Venues where one need only to adhere to the rules of common decency aren't at all exclusive "safe spaces" in the traditional definition of the term. If the Escapist amends the CoC to include ridiculous things like "claims of reverse racism/sexism will not be considered", then we would have a proper safe space.

StreamerDarkly:
It's public in that anyone can anonymously join this forum and participate in the discussion regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or nationality. Venues where one need only to adhere to the rules of common decency aren't at all exclusive "safe spaces" in the traditional definition of the term. If the Escapist amends the CoC to include ridiculous things like "claims of reverse racism/sexism will not be considered", then we would have a proper safe space.

You calling the things you want in your particular safe spaces "common decency" does not change the fact that you're instituting a safe space where only what you find acceptable is allowed to stay. The idea that the only safe spaces are those found in the wild fantasies of people endlessly complaining about them is little more than an attempt at pretending that a safe space is something that only other people do.

Though what this has to do with a simple desire to see the apparently de facto rule of homophobic and transphobic remarks being moderated made de jure is a bit of a stretch, since, as you said, you don't believe rules of common decency constitute a safe space and thus your issues with safe spaces aren't really relevant.

LifeCharacter:
You calling the things you want in your particular safe spaces "common decency" does not change the fact that you're instituting a safe space where only what you find acceptable is allowed to stay. The idea that the only safe spaces are those found in the wild fantasies of people endlessly complaining about them is little more than an attempt at pretending that a safe space is something that only other people do.

If we go by your definition, every town square is also a safe space because certain forums of speech classified by law as hate speech or incitement to violence are disallowed. If every place is then a safe space, as you seem to be arguing, what possible relevance does the term even carry? I'll be honest, I really don't like the term for the reasons mentioned in the previous post concerning its practical application. It's a neon sign with the message HERE, SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS printed on it.

LifeCharacter:
Though what this has to do with a simple desire to see the apparently de facto rule of homophobic and transphobic remarks being moderated made de jure is a bit of a stretch, since, as you said, you don't believe rules of common decency constitute a safe space and thus your issues with safe spaces aren't really relevant.

No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic and heterophobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.

n0e:

madwarper:
Rule 0
This needs to go. Either the mods/staff are always right and there's no need for an appeals process, or mod/staff are human that are capable of erring and the appeals process can make amends for their fallibility. Can't have it both ways. If you want to say that there's a time and place to appeal a penalty, and any discussion outside that arena will be met with further penalties, that's OK. But, your Rule 0 gives an air of being needlessly standoffish.

Two things.

1) When it comes to any decision made on the forums, the moderators/staff are always right. It means you can't just ignore what they say or do whatever the hell you want thinking you don't need to listen to them.

2) We're humans. No one is perfect and we wanted to be sure there was a way of handling situations that are borderline as, at times, hot topics can lead to decisions that may be correct, but the severity of the action is wrong.

Moderators aren't stupid. They can make mistakes, but the vast majority of decisions they make are correct and do not require any further consideration. It's only a handful that may need additional investigating. That's true anywhere you go.

Topic-less Thread Creation
What about a deliberately vague title? "You'll never believe this..."
What won't I believe? That the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire? That Kristin shot JR? That it wasn't butter? That someone couldn't be bothered to come up with a Topic that reflected the discussion that wanted to conduct? Well, that last one is quite believable.

It's just baiting people into looking at your post instead of telling them why they're clicking on it. Let's be considerate of others and give them an idea of why they should read said post.

Official staff group discussion and communication
Are those groups addresses supposed to be url links? Because, as of now, they're just text.

Good call. Fixing.

Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

Has there been some change to how the system treats locked threads? It seems that pages of threads have been set at locked, which would mean they automatically get deleted. I had suggested this a few times to the tech team (each time being met with a resounding /shrug) that the old threads simply remain sunk. That way any discussion could continue, but without that thread rising to the surface and interfering discussions on the top of the forum.

Closed, not deleted. It's more or less an archiving system so they can't be replied to. They can still be read and it only affects non-stickied, non-content related posts.

Dictatorships never are generally well liked.

Not saying you don't have the right but sure you can't expect people to just sit and smile at your rule 0 although it is your prerogative to institute it.

StreamerDarkly:
If we go by your definition, every town square is also a safe space because certain forums of speech classified by law as hate speech or incitement to violence are disallowed. If every place is then a safe space, as you seem to be arguing, what possible relevance does the term even carry? I'll be honest, I really don't like the term for the reasons mentioned in the previous post concerning its practical application.

I'd say that the difference between that and here are that a Town Square is subject to the law, whereas a private place that happens to be rather open to people is subject to the whims of the owner, a private citizen. Every private space is likely going to be the owner's safe space, where what they like is present and what they don't like is absent. That you don't find their views on what to include and exclude comparable to whatever radical version of a safe space your envisioning means little more than that you happen to agree with that particular safe space.

No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.

When cisphobia becomes a real thing that extends beyond an exhausted trans person venting on their private blog or twitter about cis people constantly bothering them about being trans, I'll be sure to include it. Until then, I feel it's best to leave people to their own persecution complexes rather than advocate that it become part of a private institutions CoC.

StreamerDarkly:
No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.

I'm going to have to say something here, because we're reaching silly proportions. Cisphobia is not a real thing, neither is heterophobia, there might be people who could be legitimately classified as such, but they're few and far between and they have no real power. Certainly not the power to actively discriminate against cisgender and straight people in any meaningful way. Virtually anything that's called cisphobic, or heterophobic is either an expression of extreme frustration, or turning actual hate around as a parody.

So can we stop devaluing real issues like homophobia and transphobia which contribute to mental and physical abuse, sexual assaults, assaults, murders, and rampant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Because straight and cis folk don't experience the kinds of hatred, threat, active violence, and discrimination that LGBTQ+ folk endure on a daily basis. Cisphobia and heterophobia are literally non-issues in comparison. Especially since in a lot of the developed world it's still legal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ folk in housing, employment, and access to services. Even in the places where it's officially illegal a LGBTQ+ person can't expect to even have their case heard if they're discriminated against. Where as a cisgender straight person will never face active discrimination for being cisgender and straight.

The passive aggressive section and stuff dealing with skirting the rules is VERY welcome. Pretty snazzy. I actually had a question about flagging... I know it might sound dumb, but, can you be affected by flagging a post that was seen as not breaking a rule? I know it sounds odd, but sometimes I feel worried bout flagging a post I personally see as breaking/skirting a rule, and I dunno how long/often I can flag those before a mod sends me a message with a big ol "stop that!"

IceForce:
14 warnings in 11 months, and only 2 of them were actually accurate.

Sweet biscuit cakes, what's going on there? O3o

That actually does flow into a question of Rule 0... Personally, I'm all in favour of it. I think it'll be helpful for mods to be able to see a rule break and be able to fix a behavior that's skirting a rule with a simple slap of the hammer. But I am just concerned about a record like in the screen cap. I dunno if it's any of my business, I apologize if it isn't, I'll drop it if it's not. But if I had a record like that, I'd be concerned if Rule 0 was gonna be pretty damning to my account, or maybe I was doing something that was now clarified in the new sections and clarifications of the new CoC

(Side note: I have no idea if this was the case with IceForce, I'm not attempting to make implications. It's merely a question based off of that screen cap and following up with the new CoC rules, and making sure Rule 0 isn't gonna somehow make everyone's inboxes explode the same way. Of course, that's what appeals are for. I understand that, don't worry)

LifeCharacter:
I'd say that the difference between that and here are that a Town Square is subject to the law, whereas a private place that happens to be rather open to people is subject to the whims of the owner, a private citizen. Every private space is likely going to be the owner's safe space, where what they like is present and what they don't like is absent. That you don't find their views on what to include and exclude comparable to whatever radical version of a safe space your envisioning means little more than that you happen to agree with that particular safe space.

Except this doesn't hold universally when one considers other privately owned businesses. For example, there have been some recent, high-profile examples of restaurants denying service based on the race / religious views of the customer. As far as I'm aware, this sort of discrimination has been found to be illegal. It gets a bit more ambiguous when you consider dress codes, gender exclusivity, and seemingly arbitrary age restrictions enforced by some establishments. My point is that you aren't entirely free to set any restrictions you want just because you're privately owned. More to the point, by your definition every internet site becomes a safe space just by virtue of enforcing their own unique CoC, and again I feel like this is a distortion of the term as it's commonly understood.

LifeCharacter:
When cisphobia becomes a real thing that extends beyond an exhausted trans person venting on their private blog or twitter about cis people constantly bothering them about being trans, I'll be sure to include it. Until then, I feel it's best to leave people to their own persecution complexes rather than advocate that it become part of a private institutions CoC.

Ahhh yes, the old privilege + power argument. Hating on the majority doesn't matter. Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days. Your argument is that trans people shouldn't be held accountable for it because they've been the recipients of worse discrimination. If you really believed it's the right thing to "leave people to their own persecution complexes" instead of formally granting them special rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Elvis Starburst:

IceForce:
14 warnings in 11 months, and only 2 of them were actually accurate.

Sweet biscuit cakes, what's going on there? O3o

What's going on is, despite making thousands of snippy one-liner posts that contributed nothing to the discussion back when The Escapist actually had a low content rule, IceForce somehow managed to get himself exonerated through the appeals process. This isn't the case to hang your hat on when attempting to make the argument for moderator fallibility.

Politrukk:

n0e:
*Snippity*

Dictatorships never are generally well liked.

Not saying you don't have the right but sure you can't expect people to just sit and smile at your rule 0 although it is your prerogative to institute it.

Rule 0 is there to fill in the gaps from any potential loopholes that may arise. This isn't a democracy. If you want to view it as a dictatorship, that's your prerogative. I prefer to see it as an admin of a forum stating that it's their interpretation of the rules that goes, not the other way around. As that's what it really is. It's an internet forum, there must be someone that has the final say about an issue that crops up. Almost all of the time, it will be my moderator team that handles these issues. They know the forums and are generally familiar with the folks that post in each forum. Rule 0, for that, means that if you get into an argument and a moderator says stop. You stop. If you are at odds about something that was said that may or may not be against the code of conduct, it's the moderators choice that is "correct". It's the same with the staff who do appeals. The same rules apply there as they do here.

Honestly, unless you plan on causing issues, the Code of Conduct won't even affect you. Be mature and respectful to others and there will never be a problem. It's when people get that chip on their shoulder and hide behind the shield of anonymity when they make accusations that cause issues and require us to get involved. Rule 0 allows us to ensure that they cannot take advantage of any loopholes they find and stamp out any potential issue with the "gray area" of a topic.

You don't need to like Rule 0, but again, unless you're planning on being a dick to someone or something, it will never apply to you. My staff are not tyrannical members on a power trip. They would much rather just create posts and replies like any other member instead of having to police the troublemakers. They do it because they want to keep the place a positive destination for those that visit.

LifeCharacter:

StreamerDarkly:
If we go by your definition, every town square is also a safe space because certain forums of speech classified by law as hate speech or incitement to violence are disallowed. If every place is then a safe space, as you seem to be arguing, what possible relevance does the term even carry? I'll be honest, I really don't like the term for the reasons mentioned in the previous post concerning its practical application.

I'd say that the difference between that and here are that a Town Square is subject to the law, whereas a private place that happens to be rather open to people is subject to the whims of the owner, a private citizen. Every private space is likely going to be the owner's safe space, where what they like is present and what they don't like is absent. That you don't find their views on what to include and exclude comparable to whatever radical version of a safe space your envisioning means little more than that you happen to agree with that particular safe space.

No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.

When cisphobia becomes a real thing that extends beyond an exhausted trans person venting on their private blog or twitter about cis people constantly bothering them about being trans, I'll be sure to include it. Until then, I feel it's best to leave people to their own persecution complexes rather than advocate that it become part of a private institutions CoC.

I've been harassed and targeted for being a cis white male on an elevator by an entire group of lgbt protesters. I felt threatened and endangered just for being me. I tried to spit on me (thats considered assault btw) Just because someone is a member of a group that is considered to be empowered above discrimination or oppression does not mean that an individual member of that group cannot be threatened or diminished.

DO NOT TELL ME MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT VALID. In that moment I had no power over the group mocking and threatening me for my gender and orientation. just because this does not occur with the same frequency that those in minority groups experience it does not make it invalid. you are dehumanizing and invalidating me as an individual when you mock those that are bothered by cisphobia. A major concept of intersectionality is that an individual can experience oppression from a number of different angles depending on their personal identities and experiences. Being cis, white, and male does not negate the myriad other forms of oppression I experience on a daily basis. I have many other aspects of myself that experience much oppression. You can't tell just from looking at someone all the forms of oppression they may experience so to assume someone has no hardships is bigoted and dehumanizing.

BTW having long hair and being cis has led to me being insulted, misgendered ("hehe such a pretty girl with that long hair," losing job opportunities (men must have short hair to work here- please see our dress code) and being outright threatened with violence for having long hair. Telling me to just cut my hair is insensitive and ignores the larger issue that I should be able to dress, groom, and express my self according to my own feelings and identity.

Instead of minimizing the experiences of oppression that those in traditionally less oppressed groups experience by mocking them for experiencing less oppression than other groups perhaps not be a jerk about it and accept their experiences as well. Their oppression does not minimize your oppression. We can work on this together and mocking us for experiencing oppression too just dehumanizes us and makes your entire case weaker or at least highly hypocritical.

TLDR - cis, white men have feelings too and disrespecting them does not improve your status, just makes you an oppressive bigot. Their bad experiences don't negate yours. Just be nice and don't discriminate against any group (except if it involves the console wars)

So will racism or sexism be forbidden against any group or is it ok to say horrible things about white men?

StreamerDarkly:
Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days.

This is an effort to denigrate and belittle the effects of homophobia and transphobia. That's really all this is. There is no genuine concern here; only an absurd false parallel, one which even StreamerDarkly knows lacks any sense of perspective.

So can we stop devaluing real issues like homophobia and transphobia which contribute to mental and physical abuse, sexual assaults, assaults, murders, and rampant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Because straight and cis folk don't experience the kinds of hatred, threat, active violence, and discrimination that LGBTQ+ folk endure on a daily basis. Cisphobia and heterophobia are literally non-issues in comparison. Especially since in a lot of the developed world it's still legal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ folk in housing, employment, and access to services. Even in the places where it's officially illegal a LGBTQ+ person can't expect to even have their case heard if they're discriminated against. Where as a cisgender straight person will never face active discrimination for being cisgender and straight.

This is a non-discriminatory website. I could care less if you're white, black, hispanic, LGBTQ+ or any other preference, shape or color of any kind. It simply doesn't matter to me who you are, only that you show everyone else around you a bit of respect.

Everyone, EVERYONE, is free to post here so long as what they say isn't derogatory or otherwise conflict with the sites' Code of Conduct.

I hope this clarifies my stance and the stance of the Escapist regarding equality.

StreamerDarkly:

LifeCharacter:
When cisphobia becomes a real thing that extends beyond an exhausted trans person venting on their private blog or twitter about cis people constantly bothering them about being trans, I'll be sure to include it. Until then, I feel it's best to leave people to their own persecution complexes rather than advocate that it become part of a private institutions CoC.

Ahhh yes, the old privilege + power argument. Hating on the majority doesn't happen. Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days. If you really believed it's the right thing to "leave people to their own persecution complexes" instead of formally granting them special rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Except that people who cry about anti-white racism, cisphobia, and heterophobia never actually experienced any actual discrimination. Also it's not really that there's hate against cisgender heterosexual white men, but there sure are a lot of those same cisgender heterosexual white men fighting against equality rules. Especially when LGBTQ+ folk, racial, and religious minorities are specifically targeted with hate and discrimination, even official legal hate and discrimination. That's why the special protections absolutely need to exist, because some people can't just leave other's be, they have to go out of their way to make other people's lives hell just because the other person is different.

As for your whole position:

In an attempt to cause some form of moderation paradox, what would happen if I were to necro and old thread with a swear word in the title?

In all seriousness, I'm both a fan and not a fan of moderation not being up for debate. Back when I used to play DC Universe Online I was highly active on their forums (over 10k posts) and the inability to discuss moderation lead to a HUGE disconnect between forumites and moderators. That eventually came to a head where the following situation transpired.

-A group of people who were largely constructive and helpful posters for years were wrongly permabanned.
-Another group discussed this, making it a widely known issue
-The original group was unbanned because of the attention called to the issue
-The second group that discussed the issue and got the first group unbanned was permabanned for discussing moderation

I would urge you to reconsider the discussion of moderation. Obviously don't make a public spectacle of it where you've got a moderator furiously defending their actions to an angry mob, but have an open discussion about it every so often to see if the community has some concerns and just how popular they are.

StreamerDarkly:
Except this doesn't hold universally when one considers other privately owned businesses. For example, there have been some recent, high-profile examples of restaurants denying service based on the race / religious views of the customer. As far as I'm aware, this sort of discrimination has been found to be illegal. It gets a bit more ambiguous when you consider dress codes, gender exclusivity, and seemingly arbitrary age restrictions enforced by some establishments. My point is that you aren't entirely free to set any restrictions you want just because you're privately owned. More to the point, by your definition every internet site becomes a safe space just by virtue of enforcing their own unique CoC, and again I feel like this is a distortion of the term as it's commonly understood.

Well businesses are a special case of private property in that they're not wholly private but are typically required to get permission from the government to operate and to get such a thing have to adhere to certain guidelines. You'll note though that those instances are based on race/gender/sexuality, rather than something more in line with behavior, which is what tends to be actually regulated in what is usually considered a safe space, at least by people who don't use it as little more than an accusatory snarl.

LifeCharacter:
Ahhh yes, the old privilege + power argument. Hating on the majority doesn't happen. Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days. If you really believed it's the right thing to "leave people to their own persecution complexes" instead of formally granting them special rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

It's less the old privilege + power argument (that argument wasn't even in there...) and more the idea that cisphobia is something that tends to be brought up in instances where someone found some trans person complaining on their private twitter or tumblr or whatever and are holding this up as some extreme form of bigotry rather than the more likely case of them having spent their day dealing with people taking issue with them being trans and venting about it.

Though it's nice that you consider creating rules to prevent homophobia and transphobia as granting them some sort of special rule when there are already rules about sexism and racism. It's actually been awhile since I've seen someone argue that giving LGBT people equality was, in reality, giving them special treatment.

This has been misquoted; that was KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime, not StreamerDarkly (and the comment seems to have been specifically in response to StreamerDarkly, rather than saying the CoC was guilty of those things).

updated. I just wanted to make a general post about our stance.

Whoa, wait a minute? I'm receiving a warning for that? The hell?

Its very clearly a joke directed at Elfgore's tendency to be overly dramatic when he would lock necro threads, not insulting him. Its no more harmful or mean-spirited than someone making a joke about me liking boobs or CaramelFrappe liking Miia.

EDIT: I'm removing my quoted bit here in the spirit of upholding the new rules. Sorry, SolidState, for quoting you in the first place. This isn't the place for that; if you'd like to follow-up feel free to PM me.

OT: So hate speech is now officially actually enforced as being unacceptable around here? I'm glad. Transphobia has been a pretty big issue around here, it'd be nice to see that changed.

So, if I'm not inclined to be hateful to someone on the basis of their ethnicity or something like that, not much has changed? Other than the tone, which seems to have become a little thorny. Maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing if mods stopped handing out warnings in this thread, and people stopped calling out individual mods by name or reply? Obviously there are some really strong feelings on both sides.

Which is ridiculous of course, since this is an internet gathering. If this is your drama, what are you missing in life that this seems preferable? Just relax, this is a nothing issue. It's tweaking some rules that still amount to "Do what we say, it's our playground."

Paragon Fury:
Whoa, wait a minute? I'm receiving a warning for that? The hell?

Its very clearly a joke directed at Elfgore's tendency to be overly dramatic when he would lock necro threads, not insulting him. Its no more harmful or mean-spirited than someone making a joke about me liking boobs or CaramelFrappe liking Miia.

Sometimes in-jokes are misinterpreted as attacks. You might be able to get it appealed.

shrekfan246:

SolidState:
(And it will certainly be interesting to see how certain people's -- not naming any names -- posting styles are going to change to accommodate this new rule.)

I realize that the enforcement of the new rules is going to be a bit looser in this thread, and this might be considered backseat moderating itself, but wouldn't it be better for everyone if you didn't go around testing the boundaries of the very rule you're saying will be the ruin of a bunch of people you apparently don't like?

Well that's the thing, isn't it. 'Passive-aggressiveness' is so deeply engrained in this forum's psyche, it's going to take a while to eliminate.

Just going on what other people have said (because I honestly don't know if this is true or not) but from what I've heard, Escapist's forums are oft-described by people elsewhere on the internet as being pretty 'passive-aggressive'. (Hence my "psyche" and "engrained" comment, above.)

IceForce:

shrekfan246:

SolidState:
(And it will certainly be interesting to see how certain people's -- not naming any names -- posting styles are going to change to accommodate this new rule.)

I realize that the enforcement of the new rules is going to be a bit looser in this thread, and this might be considered backseat moderating itself, but wouldn't it be better for everyone if you didn't go around testing the boundaries of the very rule you're saying will be the ruin of a bunch of people you apparently don't like?

Well that's the thing, isn't it. 'Passive-aggressiveness' is so deeply engrained in this forum's psyche, it's going to take a while to eliminate it all.

Just going on what other people have said (because I honestly don't know if this is true or not) but from what I've heard, Escapist's forums are oft-described by people elsewhere on the internet as being pretty 'passive-aggressive'. (Hence my "psyche" and "engrained" comment, above.)

I hadn't heard anything good, bad, or indifferent about this place until we were shown the door at Trailers and told that this was home now. There does seem to be a lot of drama over nothing, fueled by the fact that anything you say can and will get moderated. When it's just words, it doesn't matter, but when you start getting mods involved it's a firestorm.

IceForce:
Snip

As willing as I am to get into these sorts of discussions, I don't want to derail this thread or start any arguments, so I've elected to just remove that bit of my post.

On that note, I am curious if pointing out how someone is breaking or skirting the rules is considered backseat moderating? I feel like calling out certain rule-breaking behaviors at least has the potential of improving someone's posting habits, if "you . . . provide reasoning and justification for your statements".

I know that warning notices tend to include the reasoning behind why they were issued, but past experience leads me to believe that a lot of people tend to have a visceral reaction to receiving warnings, and they often aren't amenable to the reasoning given and frequently go on to continue acting in the way that resulted in them being warned in the first place. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things (I usually do), but it seems like the backseat moderation rule could lead to a bunch of gray areas where people are trying to get other users to understand why their rule-breaking behavior is unacceptable, and then they end up running afoul of the rules themselves.

EDIT: I mean, I understand that it's not my job to uphold the enforcement of the rules, but I've always tried to be the person who helps clarify them or tries to get people to understand possibly why their warned post got actioned. In the context of a regular forum thread, in my case it's not always so much a "friendly reminder" as it is "this might help improve the overall conversation level of the entire website", and maybe it's a personal thing but I've always liked keeping that sort of stuff above-board, so to speak. I'm not usually familiar enough with somebody that I feel justified or comfortable in just tossing them a PM (acknowledging that that's a personal thing as well, since it's kind of what the function exists for), and I feel like having it in the open forum where anyone can see also has the potential to provide said information for other users who read the thread.

Silvanus:

This has been misquoted; that was KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime, not StreamerDarkly (and the comment seems to have been specifically in response to StreamerDarkly, rather than saying the CoC was guilty of those things).

That is correct, I was responding directly to @StreamerDarkly for making some really far-fetched claims.

Terminalchaos:

TLDR - cis, white men have feelings too and disrespecting them does not improve your status, just makes you an oppressive bigot. Their bad experiences don't negate yours. Just be nice and don't discriminate against any group (except if it involves the console wars)

So will racism or sexism be forbidden against any group or is it ok to say horrible things about white men?

While I sympathize and understand your position. Please understand that the levels of horrible things others generally have to endure for being a racial, sexuality, gender identity, or religious minority are several orders of magnitude worse. It gets even worse if someone is in more than one class, in the US most of the anti-trans discrimination and hate crime last year was aimed at trans women who also happened to be in racial minority groups.

Yeah it sucks that you having long hair as a cis man means you got denied work, but on the other hand that's still not what a trans or gay person tends to experience. Which is being evicted from one's home, being fired from ones job, being denied housing, being denied employment, being put in the wrong homeless shelter. Those are experiences that cis-straight folk won't generally experience, but they are experiences trans folk like me experince, all LGBTQ+ folk experience these things. In the case of trans people it can get as bad as only being able to make a living through illegal means, or in porn.

Also the experiences you shared... Those aren't uncommon experiences that people in the LGBTQ+ community have too, especially during the coming out process and in the case of trans people, the transition process. Still the only time I ever hear a cis, straight, white, and/or male person complain about these things, is as a counter a argument person who experiences actual broad systemic oppression. Which is actively diminishing the experiences of those of us who do face gigantic social exclusion and systemic discriminatory oppression. This isn't about the oppression Olympics, we're not here to diminish your experiences, but arguing against us because of a few instances compared to our consistent experiences is an attempt to diminish our struggles.

Most importantly, none of us here are saying it's okay to hate on cisgender straight white men, that was never stated as an objective. Saying it is and bringing the subject up in the first place is a tone policing tactic, designed to get the marginalized groups to shut up. We don't want any sexism, racism, sexuality, or gender identity harassment or exclusion, still that's not something people who are the 'norm', as in the majority group, face on a regular basis either. Those of us who are of more marginalized groups experience it a lot and if there aren't specific rules to protect us, we get absolutely no protection in practice.

Thank god for no low content rule.

shrekfan246:

IceForce:
Snip

As willing as I am to get into these sorts of discussions, I don't want to derail this thread or start any arguments, so I've elected to just remove that bit of my post.

Fair enough.

shrekfan246:
On that note, I am curious if pointing out how someone is breaking or skirting the rules is considered backseat moderating? I feel like calling out certain rule-breaking behaviors at least has the potential of improving someone's posting habits, if "you . . . provide reasoning and justification for your statements".

I know that warning notices tend to include the reasoning behind why they were issued, but past experience leads me to believe that a lot of people tend to have a visceral reaction to receiving warnings, and they often aren't amenable to the reasoning given and frequently go on to continue acting in the way that resulted in them being warned in the first place. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things (I usually do), but it seems like the backseat moderation rule could lead to a bunch of gray areas where people are trying to get other users to understand why their rule-breaking behavior is unacceptable, and then they end up running afoul of the rules themselves.

I'm not quite sure of the angle either, but I remember previous heated arguments where someone would deconstruct someone else's post with a point-by-point breakdown of all the bits of their post that break the COC. For example, someone would quote someone else and accuse them of "Posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking users into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (which I'm sure we all remember from the previous COC).

There were times when ordinary users (ie: non-mods) would wield the COC like a weapon against other users. (I even had it happen to me a few times, in the old GG megathread.)

If I was to guess, I'd say this 'Backseat Moderating' rule is designed to stop that kind of behavior.

IceForce:

madwarper:

Rule 0
This needs to go. Either the mods/staff are always right and there's no need for an appeals process, or mod/staff are human that are capable of erring and the appeals process can make amends for their fallibility. Can't have it both ways. If you want to say that there's a time and place to appeal a penalty, and any discussion outside that arena will be met with further penalties, that's OK. But, your Rule 0 gives an air of being needlessly standoffish.

Yeah, I mean, you're not wrong. "Rule Zero" effectively gives the moderators carte blanche to moderate whatever they like.

Then again, the "Don't be a jerk" rule (now gone) basically did the same thing. So I guess it's just another way of wording that.

Except this is in regards specifically to moderating the forums, not just warning and banning people because they don't like their beliefs or opinions. You can always appeal.

IceForce:

There were times when ordinary users (ie: non-mods) would wield the COC like a weapon against other users. (I even had it happen to me a few times, in the old GG megathread.)

If I was to guess, I'd say this 'Backseat Moderating' rule is designed to stop that kind of behavior.

Yes, I don't mind any moves to curb that sort of behavior (in the same way that I've never really minded the rule about being unable to call people "trolls"). I think I'd just appreciate maybe a bit more clarity on whether it means any reference to/discussion of how someone is breaking the rules, or specifically people directly using the CoC as a "gotcha!"

EDIT: Sorry for the edit storm on my posts. I imagine context will be key, as it has been on these forums for years, but either way I think I've asked about the only thing that really confuses me now.

I'm really glad to see that Low Content is no longer an infraction. I have seen so many good posters banned because of that rule!

Houseman:
I think Rule 0 can be made clear, but sound less like "The mods are holier than thou". You could say something like "The mods have the authority to use their discretion in determining which posts to take action on". You don't actually have to use the words "always right" especially when a few sentences later it says "you can make an appeal", implying that they're not always right.

I agree with this, the wording in that section could definitely be improved.

n0e:

Something Amyss:

Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks
As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep sexist, racist, or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts.

What about other minority groups? This site has had a pretty active LGBT population for years, and it's rather disheartening to see this not mentioned, as it can pertain both to comfort AND safety of a significant number of users here.

It would fall under sexist comments if a comment attacks a sexual nature and racist if it attacks the LGBT community itself. Race is rather loosely defined this day and age

Example; Jews, when it comes to debates and discussions are considered a race of people when, in fact, it's a religious preference.

I think that section could use some better wording too, it seems like you are twisting the definitions of the words to make them fit and that makes the rule kind of confusing as it is written. You should have a more general term and then give sexist, and racist as examples. Discriminatory, I think that's the word? Like:

"As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep discriminatory (sexist, racist, etc.) or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts."

Also, I'm a little nervous to see "Advertising" as an instaban with no appeal. Like, I can understand it's necessary for spambots and such, but what if somebody who's been here for 5 years with 6000 posts just made something that they are really proud of. They temporarily forget the rule and rush to the forum to share, and then BAM, permaban!

What is even considered advertising anyway? If I found something really cool and make a thread about it, posting a link, could I be permabanned for advertising? Is there a way to tell the difference between someone posting something they made themselves and posting something somebody else made that they think is cool?

Edit: I also notice that calling someone a troll is no longer specifically stated to be an infraction. Is it no longer worthy of mod wrath or is it just supposed to be implied to be part of a different heading?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked