New Code of Conduct

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

NewClassic:

AccursedTheory:
Was the exclusion of thread necromancy intentional, or a goof?

Unattended threads are now locked automatically after a period of days. (Either 60 or 90, don't remember which.) So thread necromancy is no longer possible, and is subsequently no longer needed.

Wait...are locked threads searchable, now? Or is it distinct from a "sunken" thread?

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

They won't be deleted, just archived so they can no longer be posted in. Fear not.

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.

It may have been mis-interprated as a personal attack, I don't know, but the best thing to do would be to file an appeal and n0e will look into it. Sometimes it can be hard to judge banter vs. attack when not everyone knows the personal relationships between members. Perhaps this is something we can work on. I always enjoy a good bit of banter myself. :P

IceForce:

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.)

Sadly, there is some truth to this, yes.

You're right though, there aren't going to be any overnight miricals for anyone with this new COC, it'll take time for members and moderators alike to adjust to the new style of moderating and community participation that ultimately n0e has in mind, with contribution and support from all of us, but I genuinely think it'll make a positive impact in the long run.

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"

Making a post in a thread to specifically point how that person is skirting a rule or breaking one, is indeed backseat moderating. It's not your job, as a member, to publicaly warn another user for their behavour, that's our job, basically. If you have concerns about a post, the post can be flagged, and if you have specific concerns about the overall behavour of another user, feel free to contact a member of staff privately and away from the thread.

What would be acceptable, would be a friendly introduction to a new member of the community, depending on the context either in a PM or in the thread, only if it's not the sole reason for replying and would be valuable to others to read also.

What is definately not acceptable, however, is bashing each other over the head with the rulebook. If that went on before, it stops now. That's our job. ;)

Drathnoxis:
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?

I personally have had a lot of experience with this problem over the years, and as moderators we're pretty astute at noticing all the hallmarks of someone who is here purely for their own advertising gains over a long-time member who has earned the right to share their own personal project or something of that nature.

Obviously it's never acceptable to post advertisements for profitable ventures or scams and things of that nature, but no, you're not going to get an infraction or a ban for sharing something awesome! Even if it's something you made, like a mod / map or whatever the case may be.

What is the ettiquette when it comes to spoilers? I'm hoping for some improvements from where it was before. There's deliberately spoiling something which has been considered an offense under "don't be a jerk". What about posting it in the title? I've seen a few spoilers, some not even days old, be put in the title of a thread without consequence or even a title change from moderators.

There are less nefarious examples, like somebody starting a thread with, say, "X Recent Game discussion" without spoilers tagged in the title or in the post and then they drop a major spoiler three lines in. I think that very reasonably could be seen as unintentional and shouldn't necessarily earn mod wrath (though alterations from the mods, perhaps) but there are a some more explicit examples of spoiling.

Another question regarding this bit...

"Illegal Acts or Materials
Posting, admitting to, or advocating any illegal act or content, such as footage or images of any crime, will lead to immediate ban and forwarding of any and all information to the appropriate authorities."

What if the thread is about something involving criminal activity? For example, if there is some sort of ongoing riot in a major city, like London a few years ago or that rebellion that was going on in the Ukraine(?) last year, would it be okay to post photos or videos as it is relevant to the thread? Its not any sort of admission to criminal activity or anything, its just posting relelvant information about a current event. I want to assume that this is within reason and such a thing would be allowed but after that whole AdBlock incident with Jim Sterling a few years ago, a situation in which CoC was king even though basic judgement skills would deem AdBlock discussion as acceptable, led to people getting in trouble, with, IIRC, quite a few of the warnings and suspensions not even being lifted after the dust settled. Most of us would like to trust moderator judgement more than we currently do and I probably trust it more than most regulars but there's a fair bit of history, recent history even, that says we shouldn't trust it.

shrekfan246:
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.

Gotta agree on this bit. Last year we had a thread where not only did a few users say that they'd murder their kid if they turned out trans but stated that others should do the same, which, well, is advocacy of murder of a child on the basis of their gender. I didn't make a big deal of it in the thread but I flagged it and nothing ever came of it. I think I even notified a moderator about it directly a few days after I had flagged it.

Cowabungaa:
Most of the vague bits seem to have been answered already, but I have been rather curious about this one:

If you can't communicate without using combative, aggressive, or passive aggressive responses, then consider that these may not be the forums for you.

I'd like to know how you're going to judge passive aggressive responses. Because that shit can be real sneaky.

Ditto. I got a mod wrath recently that wasn't overturned where I was hit for being insulting in a passive-aggressive manner where I was being completely genuine and trying to help a poster. When I made an appeal the person who handled it offered some suggestions so that it wouldn't seem insulting even those I actually employed those in the post that was flagged. I was told I wouldn't get in trouble in the future if I did 'x' thing even though I did 'x' thing in that post because somebody still didn't like my tone. What are you supposed to do in such a situation? Good faith seems dead because of that. In fact, I was burned because I assumed that they were being genuine and not just trolling me.

Don't even worry about quoting that mess properly. Just a simple @MarsAtlas will suffice.

MarsAtlas:

"Illegal Acts or Materials
Posting, admitting to, or advocating any illegal act or content, such as footage or images of any crime, will lead to immediate ban and forwarding of any and all information to the appropriate authorities."

What if the thread is about something involving criminal activity? For example, if there is some sort of ongoing riot in a major city, like London a few years ago or that rebellion that was going on in the Ukraine(? I might be mistaken on which country) last year, would it be okay to post photos or videos as it is relevant to the thread? Its not any sort of admission to criminal activity or anything, its just posting relelvant information about a current event.

Trust your instincts! ;)

So yeah, basically you're on point. Discussing something that is in the news, such as a mass-murder case, or a terrorist attack, or other kind of news event, or general interest discussion, is of course perfectly fine.

What isn't acceptable is threads discussing how to commit mass-murder, get away with terrorism, acquire a copy of the anarchists cookbook, etc. etc.

So yes, posting news reel footage of an ongoing incident is fine. Posting a video about how to make a bomb, for example, well, that goes without saying.

MarsAtlas:

Gotta agree on this bit. Last year we had a thread where not only did a few users say that they'd murder their kid if they turned out trans but stated that others should do the same, which, well, is advocacy of murder of a child on the basis of their gender. I didn't make a big deal of it in the thread but I flagged it and nothing ever came of it. I think I even notified a moderator about it directly a few days after I had flagged it.

I think I would definitely agree that is beyond the boundaries of good taste.

MarsAtlas:

Ditto. I got a mod wrath recently that wasn't overturned where I was hit for being insulting in a passive-aggressive manner where I was being completely genuine and trying to help a poster. When I made an appeal the person who handled it offered some suggestions so that it wouldn't seem insulting even those I actually employed those in the post that was flagged. I was told I wouldn't get in trouble in the future if I did 'x' thing even though I did 'x' thing in that post because somebody still didn't like my tone. What are you supposed to do in such a situation? Good faith seems dead because of that.

I often find it's really easy to mis-read the tone of someone's post sometimes when you're on the internet, right? You're missing so many things, tone of voice, body language, all that stuff.

I find the best way to avoid coming across as passive aggressive is to use some qualifying language, 'Please don't take this the wrong way', or 'I hope you don't mind,' - please and thank you, a smile face or a joke somewhere to break any possibility of perception of tension.

It's quite easy to come across as being passive-aggressive, especially when using short, sharp sentences or one liners, for example, so perhaps it's just a case of stepping out of the box and imagining yourself reading your reply as if someone else posted it, and thinking about the possible ways people may view that post?

FileTrekker:
What is definately not acceptable, however, is bashing each other over the head with the rulebook. If that went on before, it stops now.

Oh yes, it definitely went on before.

FileTrekker:
Making a post in a thread to specifically point how that person is skirting a rule or breaking one, is indeed backseat moderating. It's not your job, as a member, to publicaly warn another user for their behavour, that's our job, basically. If you have concerns about a post, the post can be flagged, and if you have specific concerns about the overall behavour of another user, feel free to contact a member of staff privately and away from the thread.

We're allowed to provide specific examples, yes? (I hope so)

In which case, the following thread page is a pretty good case study:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.933687-people-Boycott-Marvel-until-its-CEO-resigns-and-hand-over-Marvel-because-he-donated-money-to-Trump?page=7

I won't link to the individual posts (because it feels too much like I'm calling out specific users to be moderated, even though I'm not), but if you read through the posts on that page you'll see that most of them are talking about one particular user infringing on the COC, with various people offering their various explanations as to why he broke the rules (or not).

Is this sort of thing covered under "Backseat Moderating"?

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

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.

Thanks for minimizing my concerns by attemtpting to showing how others suffer more thus dehumanizing and marginalizing my feelings. Should all races stop complaining until the native americans ghave their grievances redressed since they were the most oppressed? No, every individual has the right to address any personal grievance they suffer, regardless of their race, gender, or identity. Minimizing the suffering of those in traditionally privilieged groups is still minimizing suffering. There is no way that people actively trying to kill me was an order of magnitutde less and you are dehumanizing me by assuming that. You have no clue how consistent the suffering I have endured and assuming it is minimal is marginalizing and dehumanizing me. You are a hypocrite and I feel offended by how you marginalize my experience. I have directly (and consistently) experienced threats and violence and had people chase me with a baseball bat for having long hair. You are now hypocritically reducing my experience the same way you say others do when their experiences of abuse are brought up. Just because I am cis does not mean my experience of abuse was any less traumatic. Power is an individual concept and reducing me to constituent parts to assess my level of marginalization is dehumanizing and hurtful.
I am not trying to tone police. I have seen anti cis talk in these forums and it sincerely bugs me. I can sympathize with lgbt issues and still actively feel harmed by the language they use. The fact that I have suffered from violence from a marginalized community does not invalidate the horrible language and practices they engaged in. Just because other cis, white men, can be jerks (as can people in all groups) does not mean that I don't have valid feelings that are hurt everytime cis white men are reduced or insulted. My membership in groups considered to have more power than others does not negate the fact that my suffering still sucks and was inappropriate.

Should the assholes that happened to be publicly identified as an lgbt group that spit on me for being me be punished? Yes or no? Keep in mind I wasn't in any way trying to engage or converse. I was just in an elevator and they spit on my for being cis white male. At that point no part of their experience justified harming me or oppressing me.

You say you aren't playing the oppression olympics yet you tried to marginalize and minimize my suffering because others suffer. You assumed it was minimal on my part thus making it worse. You come across as a hateful hypocrite to me.

You can address you own suffering without negating the suffering of others. Stop minimizing suffering that is experienced by privileged groups as less valid. Unless you know a totality of an individual's experience then you are not qualified to negatively judge how much they are oppressed.

Specific rules need to protect all of us or they will de facto cause some of us being "more equal."

TLDR I'm saying that just because some groups may suffer more does not mean that members of "privileged" groups don't suffer and minimizing someones suffering by bringing up the suffering of others is the same fallacy as bringing up your own suffering to minimize the suffering of others.
I'm simply requesting that "privileged groups" receive the same civility as other groups and that mockery of privileged groups be treated the same. This is not to marginalize the suffering of others.

FileTrekker:
Making a post in a thread to specifically point how that person is skirting a rule or breaking one, is indeed backseat moderating. It's not your job, as a member, to publicaly warn another user for their behavour, that's our job, basically. If you have concerns about a post, the post can be flagged, and if you have specific concerns about the overall behavour of another user, feel free to contact a member of staff.

What would be acceptable, would be a friendly introduction to a new member of the community, depending on the context either in a PM or in the thread, only if it's not the sole reason for replying and would be valuable to others to read also.

Okay.

So then, would quoting somebody (for the sake of the hypothetical and because of your wording let's say they're an established member who's been active for a year or longer) to discuss how they could better follow the rules or why something they've said might potentially break the rules, but have that only be a part of the overall post which then goes on to discuss the larger topic of the thread at hand be considered unacceptable under these new rules? Alternatively, would calling someone out for problematic behavior that is also against the rules (i.e. homophobia/transphobia/sexism/racism) again in the same framework of it not being the sole reason for the entire post be, in itself, against the rules under this new system?

My concerns mostly stem from my belief that being unable to directly confront somebody would seem to stymie attempts to raise the average level of discourse on the internet. Now, direct confrontation can itself be counter-productive (EDIT: especially if it leads to derailment), but I honestly don't think that people who are "problem posters" are going to see the metaphorical error of their ways if they're just slapped around by the authority a bit. At least from what I've seen in the past, they tend to just find other websites where they're free to continue acting in the way that got them warned/banned to begin with. I know that it's a bit idealistic of me to believe that someone is actually going to overhaul their deeply entrenched opinions just because they got into an online slapfight, but... well, I still have some faith in people, I suppose. XD

IceForce:
-snip-

So yes, I would consider some of the content in the example you posted to be a good example of backseat moderating.

Derailing a thread like that isn't helpful to anyone. Again, the best course of action, if you see someone breaking a rule, don't quote it, question them directly or acknowledge it publicly, just flag it, contact a moderator in private and let the moderators deal with it.

The way I see it myself, is that it's not particularly a great impression on the topic or the community in general when someone potentially comes along to participate in a discussion only to find the topic derailed to discuss the why's and why-not's of one bad apple's wrongdoing. If anything it only serves to propagate the problem.

shrekfan246:
Okay.

So then, would quoting somebody (for the sake of the hypothetical and because of your wording let's say they're an established member who's been active for a year or longer) to discuss how they could better follow the rules or why something they've said might potentially break the rules, but have that only be a part of the overall post which then goes on to discuss the larger topic of the thread at hand be considered unacceptable under these new rules? Alternatively, would calling someone out for problematic behavior that is also against the rules (i.e. homophobia/transphobia/sexism/racism) again in the same framework of it not being the sole reason for the entire post be, in itself, against the rules under this new system?

My concerns mostly stem from my belief that being unable to directly confront somebody would seem to stymie attempts to raise the average level of discourse on the internet. Now, direct confrontation can itself be counter-productive, but I honestly don't think that people who are "problem posters" are going to see the metaphorical error of their ways if they're just slapped around by the authority a bit. At least from what I've seen in the past, they tend to just find other websites where they're free to continue acting in the way that got them warned/banned to begin with. I know that it's a bit idealistic of me to believe that someone is actually going to overhaul their deeply entrenched opinions just because they got into an online slapfight, but... well, I still have some faith in people, I suppose. XD

There's an element to common sense in this, but generally speaking, it's better for a problematic poster to be dealt with by the moderation team / staff then by calling that person out yourself.

The quickest and most effective way to deal with someone who is breaking a rule, or trying to skirt around one, isn't to quote them in a thread and call them out on it, because it's going to escalate into an argument with that person, guaranteed.

Of course, we do really rely on the community a lot to help us keep the forums clean, so we more than encourage you to contact a moderator privately or to flag the post, and make known your concerns, so we can deal with them accordingly on your behalf.

But I appreciate your sentiment, nontheless, I know exactly what you're saying, but often it's best left to the staff to deal with, because unfortunately not everyone is going to take what you say reasonably.

This isn't to say that you can't debate the rights and wrongs of a topic or anything like that, obviously, it's just where it concerns the COC of this website, flag it up and leave us to warn people about breaking it, basically.

FileTrekker:
Snip

Fair enough, thanks for the response. I suppose I still have my concerns about it, but I'll do my best to respect it all the same.

FileTrekker:
The way I see it myself, is that it's not particularly a great impression on the topic or the community in general when someone potentially comes along to participate in a discussion only to find the topic derailed to discuss the why's and why-not's of one bad apple's wrongdoing. If anything it only serves to propagate the problem.

I think the problem might stem from this forum's moderation transparency. Allow me to explain...

On other forum sites, moderated posts are often completely hidden from public view (even if the post is in the middle of a thread or discussion). Only the mods and the recipient of the moderation can see the post, no one else. So there's nothing for anyone else to gossip about or derail onto.
On this forum however, the moderation is much more transparent and not hidden from public view. This is good, but it creates the problem of 'warned' posts sticking out like a sore thumb, sometimes resulting in a thread derail (even if it's just someone asking "Why'd so-and-so get warned for that?") Suspensions and bans are even worse, since there's a link on all the user's posts linking to the one post that did them in. This can cause people to flock to and congregate on a thread out of sheer curiosity and nosiness.

Now let me be clear, I'm not saying the moderation should be made less transparent, because I like moderated posts being visible like they are. But I guess derails like I've described above are the price we pay for having that level of transparency.

Terminalchaos:
Thanks for minimizing my concerns by attemtpting to showing how others suffer more thus dehumanizing and marginalizing my feelings. Should all races stop complaining until the native americans ghave their grievances redressed since they were the most oppressed? No, every individual has the right to address any personal grievance they suffer, regardless of their race, gender, or identity. Minimizing the suffering of those in traditionally privilieged groups is still minimizing suffering. There is no way that people actively trying to kill me was an order of magnitutde less and you are dehumanizing me by assuming that. You have no clue how consistent the suffering I have endured and assuming it is minimal is marginalizing and dehumanizing me. You are a hypocrite and I feel offended by how you marginalize my experience. I have directly (and consistently) experienced threats and violence and had people chase me with a baseball bat for having long hair. You are now hypocritically reducing my experience the same way you say others do when their experiences of abuse are brought up. Just because I am cis does not mean my experience of abuse was any less traumatic. Power is an individual concept and reducing me to constituent parts to assess my level of marginalization is dehumanizing and hurtful.
I am not trying to tone police. I have seen anti cis talk in these forums and it sincerely bugs me. I can sympathize with lgbt issues and still actively feel harmed by the language they use. The fact that I have suffered from violence from a marginalized community does not invalidate the horrible language and practices they engaged in. Just because other cis, white men, can be jerks (as can people in all groups) does not mean that I don't have valid feelings that are hurt everytime cis white men are reduced or insulted. My membership in groups considered to have more power than others does not negate the fact that my suffering still sucks and was inappropriate.

I'm not minimizing your experiences. But here's a contrast, I have a friend that was beaten, tortured for hours, raped repeatedly, the group of guys who did this to her also tried to brand her with the words "tranny" and "it freak". These people also tried to murder her, but the gun jammed and she barely escaped with her life. Now as a further contrast that basic story has been related to me in somewhat different circumstances by no fewer than a dozen people I know. All of them are trans.

I said I symapthize with you, I understand how you feel in how you've been treated, that's actually very humanizing. Using in buzz words doesn't change the fact that you still have it a lot batter. It also doesn't change the fact that you're relating the story as a tactic for tone policing, you're telling me to shut up. That's in spite of the fact that I really do understand how you feel because of how you've been treated. In spite of the fact that what those people did is wrong and they really should know better. More over I condemn them as scum for having treated you like that.

Still the magnitude of mistreatment does matter. I had to present male for a year and a half to have a job I desperately needed, in order to take care of my father who just had open-heart triple bypass surgery. I had to cut my hair, wear male clothes, bind my chest, and "act like a man". All of that just to have a damn minimum wage job. Mind you this was 5 years into my transition. When I hit the point where I could no longer take it, where I was drinking heavily each night just to escape the pain keeping that job... I filed a complaint and was fired for it. After that me and my dad went homeless for a year, despite my presentation and ID, I was forced into the men's homeless shelter. All of that doesn't make your experience invalid, but it should put some perspective into how vastly different our situations are just because I'm trans and you're cis. All I ask here is that you understand, I spent two and a half years on the verge of suicide because of the discrimination and invalidation I faced, that's not to mention a year of constant threats of rape and murder.

None of that is anti-cis, that's reality of how hard I have it for not being cis, compared to really the relatively easy time you've had because you're cis. I don't begrudge you, and I'm not saying that your experience is less valid. At the same time it's a lot less severe and a lot less systemic. Please understand when you're wronged, I'll be in your corner, no one should be treated the way either of us has been.

Terminalchaos:
Should the assholes that happened to be publicly identified as an lgbt group that spit on me for being me be punished? Yes or no? Keep in mind I wasn't in any way trying to engage or converse. I was just in an elevator and they spit on my for being cis white male. At that point no part of their experience justified harming me or oppressing me.

They spit on you, that's legally battery at the minimum, but in my state that qualifies as assault in the second. If not publicly exposed, reported to the police at least. So yes, they should have been punished. But in this case you were targeted for harassment, not oppressed, oppression is systemic, it would be something you experience on every level of your life, not just in an isolated incident. People with power to write law are trying to force me into the incorrect bathroom, where I'm more likely to experience harassment and brutality, that's oppression. Being harassed and accosted on one occasion isn't oppression, it's still illegal and totally wrong, but it's not oppression. Also keep in mind, I can't pass for male even when I try, my year and a half in the shit job proved that. If we met in a men's bathroom you'd freak out, because I don't and can't pass for male, so you'd see me as a woman in a men's only space. You're not a bad person for that, not at all. Still it'd be a problem, all because I wasn't born female and law makers want to put me in your space.

Terminalchaos:
You say you aren't playing the oppression olympics yet you tried to marginalize and minimize my suffering because others suffer. You assumed it was minimal on my part thus making it worse. You come across as a hateful hypocrite to me.

I am not trying to minimize you, nor am I trying to minimize your experience, I'm trying adding perspective. Realize your suffering is not constant, it's not enforced legally, and your identity isn't invalidated at every opportunity. That's not a bad thing on you either. I never called you "scum", I never said you're unimportant, but I did try to point out that your treatment is automatically more credible than mine. Let me show you this: The FRC has a RNC Plan to legislate trans people out of US life and society. Huffington post source. FRC Source.

Now look at those sources and tell us LGBTQ+ folk have it better than you. Because people are still trying to out law you as a person. Right? RIGHT!?

Terminalchaos:
You can address you own suffering without negating the suffering of others. Stop minimizing suffering that is experienced by privileged groups as less valid. Unless you know a totality of an individual's experience then you are not qualified to negatively judge how much they are oppressed.

Except you're not oppressed, you're not minimized, you're not ignored out of hand, you don't have people trying to make laws against who you are... I DO! Every single "religious freedoms act" every "bathroom bill" every government restriction of rights of trans folk is aimed squarely at me and everyone even remote like me. Have they tried to ban cisgender identities legally? Fuck no! Have a sense of perspective. No matter how bad you've had it, it's a drop in the bucket compared to how LGBTQ+ folk have had it. We get murdered.. Exterminated by "good god fearing" cis folk... So tell me, how are your isolated incidents comparable to my systemic every moment of every day oppression. Hint it's not. I sympathize with how you've been badly treated, but I'd bet money you'd throw me under the bus and pass a bill to make who I am illegal.

Terminalchaos:
Specific rules need to protect all of us or they will de facto cause some of us being "more equal."

No that's bullshit. Every minority has had to fight tooth and nail for the most basic respect as human beings. Those of us who don't conform need special protections because those in power are the majority and they try to legally limit our rights. You will never really face that... A hair cut will never make you want to slit your wrists... All you've done is excuse real systemic bigotry and favoritism in your favor. So wise up.

Edit: I'm not invalidating any wrongs you have faced, I'm showing how skewed in your favor society is. You could win a lawsuit for someone denying you a job for just having long hair, I can't win one for someone denying me a job for being trans, even when the law is in my favor. Think about that. You have an automatic support structure because you're "normal", I lack one just because I'm not "normal"...

I'm a big fan of rule zero. I've expressed this in previous threads, but the previous rules made it very easy to skirt the line on the rules and be jerks with no recourse because no rule was technically broken. Same with the passive aggressiveness rule. It will be interesting to see how these rules in particular play out, hopefully well.

I also like the removal of the low content rule. I think that just made things worse than better. Good ideal, not as good in practice.

inu-kun:
Just a question if we already talk about it, probably not the right place to ask though, any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one? It just means that people who've been here longer are closing in to their doom, especially if they can't play "the game" right.

I'd like to second this. That is all.

As for the ongoing discussion about including homophobia and transphobia specifically alongside racism and sexism, well, I get the point that that sort of thing shouldn't have to be expressly stated, but while we were expressly stating things anyway it would have been nice.

The thing is... Well, I'll believe n0e that they think they are a big LGBTQ supporter but I know lots of people who say that and consistently fail to live up to even the most basic standards of tolerance, let alone support. My bar is set exceedingly low for this and I am constantly disappointed by people who really should be better. So I'm going to take the Yahtzee path on this and just expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised when you prove yourself.

And really, I'm not sure how effective the moderation team can really be in solving cultural inertia problems anyway. The Escapist is the only community I still frequent where I feel like I have to walk on eggshells about being trans. I'm not even sure why. It's like simply being me is a political statement, one that people will come out of the woodwork to try to counter. And I can tell you this: it never, ever felt like that when I was presenting male here.

Is there a solution to this? I am not sure, but somehow other places manage to not make every thread that mentions gender issues into the political equivalent of a boxing match.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
I'm not minimizing your experiences. But here's a contrast, I have a friend that was beaten, tortured for hours, raped repeatedly, the group of guys who did this to her also tried to brand her with the words "tranny" and "it freak". These people also tried to murder her, but the gun jammed and she barely escaped with her life. Now as a further contrast that basic story has been related to me in somewhat different circumstances by no fewer than a dozen people I know. All of them are trans.

Gun didn't jam, the shooter missed by a few inches, which at a range of about fifteen feet or so is a different that can be caused within the margins of an involuntary twitch.

After that me and my dad went homeless for a year, despite my presentation and ID, I was forced into the men's homeless shelter.

A further note that a quarter of trans folk who use homeless shelters and are forced to shack as their assigned gender are sexually assaulted by other homeless individuals or staff members.

Anywho, I don't think it'd be a case of backseat moderating if I recommended that this discussion continue in a new thread.

Sassafrass:
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.

I plan on having it reviewed once a year. Communities change, and a review of the Code of Conduct that governs them should be looked at if it needs to change, too.

And correct! The legality of posts is based on U.S. law.

IceForce:

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.)

Having experienced quite a level of passive aggressive comments that I've had to look into, I know full well about the overall attitude this forum has with passive-aggressive behavior. But, if we want to make a change, we need to start somewhere.

Drathnoxis:
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:

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."

To each their own. I feel the language as is explains it clearly. I'm not saying you're nitpicking, but if both definitions get the point across, why change it?

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?

Discretion of the Moderator. They're the front line of any action that's taken. They'll use their judgement to determine how to handle each situation as it arises. (Part of that Rule 0 everyone thinks is going to be used to ban people at will for some reason) Obviously, we don't want to ban anyone for simply expressing their joy of randomgame, and want to remove those who simply want to clutter our forum with advertisements.

Rules are intentionally vague to allow interpretation of them and add flexibility in how they're handled. Believe it or not, it's a really good thing to do. I think past experiences have clouded your optimism and expect what everyone seems to be afraid will happen, will. It won't. I'm far too old to go on a power trip. ;) I'd rather have a happy and lively community to be a part of.

well i have to admit i was wrong. i did not expect you to improve CoC, but you did. Its not perfect, but its better than what we had before. There still are some issues that worth bringing up.

Rule Zero is a funny one, because it implies that staff is suprahuman omnipotent beings instead of humans. I understand why you put it given the behaviuor you've seen lately, but it just sounds like staff is some royalty that can shit all over the peasants like we're back in middle ages. I think a better wording would help. right now it sounds like ego trip.

anything else that the moderators see as <...> offensive are also not permitted

This is a blanket authority for moderators to ban anything because offense is entirely subjective. I mean, its not like they couldnt ban anyone they wanted anyway, but this basically says "yeah we will ban anyone we dont like".

Another thing to point out is that some rules overlap. For example lets take Piracy. Piracy is an illegal act where Escapist is registered and thus would fall under permaban, but it is also mentioned as an example of infraction only offense. which one is it?

Something Amyss:

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.

I think this is covered by:
Inflammatory Comments / Trolling
You may not post anything that is reasonably considered discriminatory towards other members. (i.e. homophobic, prejudiced or any other comments that would be deemed as hate speech)

n0e:

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.

and yet just couple weeks ago we had a moderator that decided to enforce a nonexisting rule and went so far as to edit other peoples posts until he was told he was wrong by the staff. people who didnt listen to him were doing the right thing in this case. Though i think that was before you came here.

Strazdas:

n0e:

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.

and yet just couple weeks ago we had a moderator that decided to enforce a nonexisting rule and went so far as to edit other peoples posts until he was told he was wrong by the staff. people who didnt listen to him were doing the right thing in this case. Though i think that was before you came here.

That was then. This is now. :) I'm a bit more hands on.

n0e:

Strazdas:

n0e:

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.

and yet just couple weeks ago we had a moderator that decided to enforce a nonexisting rule and went so far as to edit other peoples posts until he was told he was wrong by the staff. people who didnt listen to him were doing the right thing in this case. Though i think that was before you came here.

That was then. This is now. :) I'm a bit more hands on.

I would like to say that I appreciate that.

I like this Code of Conduct, the new rules and the layout

Then again, I'm a sick fuck who found the old CoC not that bad

I'll continue as I have in the past; do no evil c:

A CoC change?

Fun!

IceForce:

n0e:
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.

I'm not meaning to be an ass here or start an argument, but I personally take issue with this. And here's why:

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

I fully admit that this is anecdotal, but for me personally, the "vast majority" of moderation decisions against me have in fact NOT been correct.

I dunno... maybe other people's experiences have been different, and I've just had a run of bad luck or something.

It's anecdotal.

Personally, I've received 8 (I think I got one or two reversed; memory's failing me here) warnings over the past 5-6 years, four of which were in a 5 month period wherein I apparently lost my patience a lot more than the previous few year's time. But the total breakdown is as follows:

Two for low content.
Two for calling (A spade a spade...I can't help it...because I'm at least 50% right on this so far) someone a troll.
Four for being a dick. (It's so hard not to be sometimes. Get it? Hard? HA.)

I think I got one of the dicks reversed (a painful process, to be sure), but I try to own up to the crap I do and, frankly, all (possibly save for one) of the above were called well by the moderators.

On the other hand, I've also seen quite a lot that I'd deem to be over the line go unwarned, or seemingly innocuous posts getting slapped...which is entirely anecdotal on my part as well. Not to mention the number of people who've skirted bans for yeeeeeears. WHICH-

Segue.

Is why I have a bit of a problem with rule 0.

We're all different. Stuff is subjective. Room for error. And the rule, as it's currently worded, comes across like "I'm right, you're wrong, if you have a problem then bugger off because we're the final word, m8" and lends a sense of predeterminism to the appeals process.

With that said? I like you moddy types and don't envy you your jobs. ESPECIALLY because-

Segue Part Deux.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to attack others for that opinion. If you can't communicate without using combative, aggressive, or passive aggressive responses, then consider that these may not be the forums for you. Focus your response on your disagreement with a person's opinion, not on the person.

You've all officially consigned yourselves to a 90 hour work week.

Seriously, you've all got your work cut out for you now and...man, the appeals process is gonna be a nightmare. Thank fuck that this rule isn't retroactive. A good 75% of the forum, including myself, would get whacked upside our heads with the hammer immediately.

Fuck, half the people in this thread would be gone.

But...still. I like it. Finally. Good. May make for less acidic exchanges.

Drathnoxis:
]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."

Seconding this.

It neatly handles the ongoing discussion about anti-white stuff too. So. Woo. Compromise. And, after refreshing the CoC again...hours later, I'm glad to see that this was implemented.

image

inu-kun:
Just a question if we already talk about it, probably not the right place to ask though, any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one? It just means that people who've been here longer are closing in to their doom, especially if they can't play "the game" right.

Also, this.

Not at all due to my own personal interest or anything.

Side Note: What's the policy on avatars?

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
big snip

Terminalchaos:
Specific rules need to protect all of us or they will de facto cause some of us being "more equal."

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

No that's bullshit. Every minority has had to fight tooth and nail for the most basic respect as human beings. Those of us who don't conform need special protections because those in power are the majority and they try to legally limit our rights. You will never really face that... A hair cut will never make you want to slit your wrists... All you've done is excuse real systemic bigotry and favoritism in your favor. So wise up.

Edit: I'm not invalidating any wrongs you have faced, I'm showing how skewed in your favor society is. You could win a lawsuit for someone denying you a job for just having long hair, I can't win one for someone denying me a job for being trans, even when the law is in my favor. Think about that. You have an automatic support structure because you're "normal", I lack one just because I'm not "normal"...

You still miss the point. I tell you my woes, you reply by throwing more experiences of others to me then tell me they are more severe. Telling me a haircut would not make me want to slit my wrists is a huge and hurtful assumption and you yet again dehumanize and minimize me because you can only understand your point of view. This is the same problem you seem to imply I have.
I would likely not win that haircut lawsuit. I went to a lawyer and asked. Stop assuming and minimizing me. Every time someone tells me to cut my hair I feel minorly oppressed. Having someone chase me with sharp scissors isn't a funny, cutesy joke. I felt endangered. Long hair causes different treatment from other people and authorities as well.
Being FORCED to have a haircut would harm me mentally and emotionally to a huge degree. If that is something intrinsic to how I see myself then telling me to cut my hair is offensive. It is the same issue of oppression. You assume its a few incidents and you minimize me yet again. I have been oppressed due to my long hair and expecting me to cut it to change that experience is as offensive as asking someone not to wear a dress so they're harassed less.
I used to wear a cloak for religious reasons. Try doing that in public without being harassed by the cops and feeling threatened and oppressed. Try having teachers tell you to put your pentacles away but say students wearing crosses were fine. Try not being able to have a pentacle on a gravestone until fighting for decades. Oh wait, you do understand some of that oppression. So do I. I acknowledge that others can suffer, sometimes more sometimes less than I have. I also understand that I cannot assume I know how oppressed or marginalized someone else truly is unless I was them. Forcing someone to wait outside an office for 5 minutes isn't normally an issue, unless they are acutely agoraphobic. Suddenly that experience is traumatic for them. They don't disclose that issue but they do get offended when you dismiss them for being agitated and bothered to have to wait outside so long. It doesn't matter how stressful the business in the office is, to the person forced to wait outside it could be more or less stressful and to just assume that their stress is invalid is marginalizing them.

If you are not willing to acknowledge my oppression and understand I may have suffered oppression for other reasons then you prove my point. I have seen mockery of members of my groups here more than once. You want others to feel more sorry for you or see your pain as more valid. you are playing the oppression olympics. If you acknowledge intersectionality then you understand myriad influences on personal experience, harassment and oppression. You should also understand I may not disclose every single issue or group I belong to that causes my experience to be more difficult. I should not assume that I do not suffer or have had other experiences merely because I choose not to disclose them. Just knowing some basic categories about someone does not mean you know them all.
Don't assume you know anyone's full background or experience or marginalize it by saying yours must be worse. We can compare bad experiences or we can address the issues brought up by whomever was communicating as they are without having to contextualize them with the suffering of every other sentient.

Instead you could be a decent human being and say- "That really sucks. BTW My experience really sucks." Don't tell me your experience is worse because that comes across as attempting to invalidate or marginalize my experience. Don't dig into me in some pointless attempt at education. I am acutely aware of some of the problems possessed by others in regards to identity. I won't disclose how or why I know some of these things because it isn't my business to out others. Those people also know what I've been through. Luckily they are good and empathetic people who know how to express their issues and struggles while simultaneously acknowledging mine without marginalization. We can complain about what we experience without feeling like we are being mocked or slighted for not "having it as bad" as the other.

Perhaps in order to not have my complaints mocked or marginalized I must disclose every bit of suffering I have ever experienced. I don't think its worth it, though.
My original point is that I want to make sure that members of any group are equally protected by the new code of conduct and n0e seemed to address that aptly.

What would bias against AI be called? Not just the anti-technological Luddite stance, specifically a chauvinist who hates AI.
If AI become complex enough to post to what degree may we mock them? Though if they do post perhaps this I'm not a robot recaptcha would be removed due to offensiveness.

Alrighty, KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime, Terminalchaos, feel free to continue this discussion in a more appropriate thread, but if we can leave this particular debate at the door as far as pertains to the non-COC part, as we'd like to keep it centred on discussion of the new Code of Conduct, please.

Thanks.

LostGryphon:

IceForce:
I dunno... maybe other people's experiences have been different, and I've just had a run of bad luck or something.

It's anecdotal.

Well yes. I'd hope that my experiences are not representative of the wider picture. Because if they are, it means that contrary to what was stated, the "vast majority" of moderator rulings are in fact not correct. Because that's certainly how it's been in my case.

But yes, you're right. It's not a conclusion we can reasonably jump to with a sample size of only 1.

LostGryphon:
Is why I have a bit of a problem with rule 0.

We're all different. Stuff is subjective. Room for error. And the rule, as it's currently worded, comes across like "I'm right, you're wrong, if you have a problem then bugger off because we're the final word, m8"

To be fair, they've always had this ability. The powers-that-be here have the right to ban anyone they like for any reason they like, as does anyone who runs their own private internet forum. Which is why I always find it amusing whenever someone tries to pull the 'freedom of speech' card here.

Really, the only difference is that the previous COC had the affability to not actually mention this facet directly, whilst the new COC does mention it directly.

inu-kun:
Just a question if we already talk about it, probably not the right place to ask though, any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one? It just means that people who've been here longer are closing in to their doom, especially if they can't play "the game" right.

ThatOtherGirl:

inu-kun:
Just a question if we already talk about it, probably not the right place to ask though, any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one? It just means that people who've been here longer are closing in to their doom, especially if they can't play "the game" right.

I'd like to second this. That is all.

LostGryphon:

inu-kun:
Just a question if we already talk about it, probably not the right place to ask though, any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one? It just means that people who've been here longer are closing in to their doom, especially if they can't play "the game" right.

Also, this.

Not at all due to my own personal interest or anything.

Uh, I'm not sure what you guys are asking. Because the COC already talks about exactly what inu-kun says there in his post. "any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one?"

It's right here:

COC:
After every 6 months without any warnings, you will drop down one level on the Forum Health Meter. After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before.

It's at the bottom of the 'health bar' section.

IceForce:

Well yes. I'd hope that my experiences are not representative of the wider picture. Because if they are, it means that contrary to what was stated, the "vast majority" of moderator rulings are in fact not correct. Because that's certainly how it's been in my case.

But yes, you're right. It's not a conclusion we can reasonably jump to with a sample size of only 1.

I dunno, man. This comes across as a little passive aggressive to me.

Mods! MOOOODS!

I kid. I kid.

To be fair, they've always had this ability. The powers-that-be here have the right to ban anyone they like for any reason they like, as does anyone who runs their own private internet forum. Which is why I always find it amusing whenever someone tries to pull the 'freedom of speech' card here.

Really, the only difference is that the previous COC had the affability to not actually mention this facet directly, whilst the new COC does mention it directly.

Well sure. At least having the illusion of freedom is kinda nice though.

IceForce:

Uh, I'm not sure what you guys are asking. Because the COC already talks about exactly what inu-kun says there in his post. "any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one?"

It's right here:

COC:
After every 6 months without any warnings, you will drop down one level on the Forum Health Meter. After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before.

It's at the bottom of the 'health bar' section.

Ah. I appear to have misread it.

I thought he was asking for a reduction in the existing time it takes to lose a bar, not asking for a reduction period.

I just saw my thread title was altered just a bit. Well, from correctly saying "fuck" to "f*%k". Not a big deal but still interesting to see.

Let's hope the new rules don't push users away from the site.

I'd like to second Jamash's questions in post 66, which don't seem to have been answered yet.

EDIT: Oh, and the usual stuff about how rules are only as good as the way they are enforced.

I can obviously see the pros and cons of the Zeroth Law. Still, at the end of the day, the wording is a bit provocative, but the gist of it makes sense, because most forums if not all will have mods acting on their own interpretations, sometimes on a case by case, and this is specially the case here considering that some rules are vague and open to discussion/interpretation. At least that rule avoids the usual hypocrisy of "this code is purely objective and will be applied like we're robots, without our feelings, likes, dislikes, and failing human reasoning interferring", which happens when the core doesn't state that mods and admins can go beyond strict rules and have the final say.
The real test is in how it's actually applied.

I also like a lot the "This is a private site, it's not a strictly public space, so we set the rules". Because it's exactly how internet sites are, and most people fail to realize it. Any forum, at the end of the day, is a dictatorship, even 4/8chan; they can be North Korea or a benevolent enlightened dictatorship, but at the end of the day, the owner of the site/forum, the one who pays for it and is legally responsible is the guy who is the ultimate master, and is the autocrat of that place. It might be tampered in cases where people have to pay to post, because they contribute to the funding of the site, but in a case like Escapist, it would obviously be tough to differentiate between random posters and Pub Club members.

n0e:
I plan on having it reviewed once a year. Communities change, and a review of the Code of Conduct that governs them should be looked at if it needs to change, too.

Interesting idea.
I've always thought (even if it's quite unrealistic) that most laws should be reviewed on a regular basis, every few years, to check if they're still relevant or should be modified according to the current situation/scientific advances/political environment/moral setup of the society/other, so that's a good move, I think.

So the only thing I noticed to worry about is that I cannot swear in titles, but I dont actually know if I could beforehand.

Once I learned how to attack ideas rather than people(thankyou for teaching me to do that Escapist I genuinely believe it made me a smarter person) and not to talk about illegal things I really had no trouble not getting warnings. The only time I got one recently was when I made a thread that I felt would get controversial and changed it on purpose to something that got me no discussion value warning.

People carry on about it making us passive agressive but I think its great. Learn not to tie your sense of self worth to your ideas and maybe you can actually change your mind on issues and grow as a person.

I got really close though to getting banned years ago. People worry about the mods being too harsh now but I still have a message in my inbox from years ago where somebody couldnt believe I got a warning for quoting Stiffler from american pie. It was maybe a little trolly because it was a guy asking how to talk to a girl he liked, but still I dont think it would happen now.

This may be more of a suggestion for the Tech team, but with the new CoC I feel it is relevant to this thread: would it be possible to implement a system where you can explain why you are reporting a post?

For example, someone can have a really lengthy post that has an insult or two buried in it and it would be easy for a moderator to miss the few words and otherwise think the post was reported erroneously/maliciously.

I am concerned about this because there was recently comments that over-reporting was being considered as potentially being an offence.

This forum has an international userbase and the new CoC is a little vague - my country has hate-speech laws and is politically centre/left of typical American values (depending on the time period one looks at) which has inevitably shaped my morals and upbringing. As such, there may be something I see as blatant homophobia/transphobia (etc.) that would get a pass in a more American context, again leading to a moderator perhaps thinking that the post had been reported maliciously.

I would really appreciate a text-box to be able to highlight specific quotes of a post that is being reported and provide an explanation as to why I felt such a post needed examination by the moderators.

Some forums have this as a required feature, others it is purely optional. I prefer it being an optional feature as otherwise it can be a pain in the butt to have to write an explanation for why you are reporting "fake documents here" spambots, to use a recent example. I know you can do this by going to a user's profile and using that version of the report feature, but that involves having to go back-and-forth to a particular thread/post to pull out the problematic elements and find the correct hyperlinks and so on.

Having this textbox feature on the standard report button would make things more practical for the userbase and more efficient for the moderators (as specific behaviour is highlighted rather than having to scour posts/threads). It would also provide a way to flag one post to draw attention to a whole thread going off a cliff and requiring attention, thereby avoiding spam of the report queue and avoiding having to either post concerns publicly in the moderation usergroup (therefore creating possibility of drama) or PMing a moderator (who may not be active for some time given time-zones and daily life, whereas another moderator currently online would see a flag in the moderation queue more promptly and thus deal with a bad situation before it can deteriorate faster).

I think the new CoC is generally in the right place but a little vague, hence desiring this extra functionality.

Parasondox:
I just saw my thread title was altered just a bit. Well, from correctly saying "fuck" to "f*%k". Not a big deal but still interesting to see.

Let's hope the new rules don't push users away from the site.

You're still okay to swear (non-excessively) in posts, but not in thread titles, this is so we can promote threads on places like the front page of The Escapist.

There's going to be a period of adjustment to this, I imagine, but you'll get used to it. ;)

n0e:

Strazdas:

n0e:
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.

and yet just couple weeks ago we had a moderator that decided to enforce a nonexisting rule and went so far as to edit other peoples posts until he was told he was wrong by the staff. people who didnt listen to him were doing the right thing in this case. Though i think that was before you came here.

That was then. This is now. :) I'm a bit more hands on.

As someone who was affected by the incident that Strazdas mentioned, I'm glad to hear you say this. Additional staff oversight to ensure we don't get a repeat of that, is much appreciated.

FileTrekker:

Parasondox:
I just saw my thread title was altered just a bit. Well, from correctly saying "fuck" to "f*%k". Not a big deal but still interesting to see.

Let's hope the new rules don't push users away from the site.

You're still okay to swear (non-excessively) in posts, but not in thread titles, this is so we can promote threads on places like the front page of The Escapist.

There's going to be a period of adjustment to this, I imagine, but you'll get used to it. ;)

Makes sense. It doesn't bother me much. I know thread titles/links can be seen on Google searches and of course with swears in them, would make them seem aggressive and misunderstood on the topic being spoken about.

Well, I have to say I'm always apprehensive when the rhetoric of "Safe Spaces" enters the picture. It always seems like a confounding of categories to me, since the concept is derived from specifically therapeutic settings, not from a model of everyday interactions. And an Internet forum that is not especially conceived as a therapeutic site should foster adequate standards of everyday interaction, rather than emulate clinical models.

I realize that this language is commonly seen as standard boilerplate at the moment, but that is no reason to simply adapt to a trend that contributes towards establishing a virtual public sphere consisting of vast, overlapping group therapy rooms. Not only does it have a chilling effect on the public discussion of ideas, but it leads to conflicts of precedence among different groups seeking out these supposedly safe spaces. In actual clinical practice, safe spaces for different needs are kept separate, as that is the only way they can truly function. Everyone is not just dumped into the same chamber to squabble amongst themselves over who has the most claim for attention. There's no "universal safe space".

Bottom line: "safe spaces" are for retreat and healing, so a person can be empowered to face everyday interaction. A web site about video games and associated pursuits ought to be that everyday interaction, not the retreat. Now, does this mean that it should tolerate flagrant persecution of any identity groups? Of course not. But the standards it should aspire to ought to be those of common courtesy towards everybody, no matter what their distinguishing identitarian markers. Specialist nurture is, and ought to be, beyond the scope of a general gaming forum. There are other spaces for those needs.

Obviously whatever the exact phrasing in the Code of Conduct, how this forum works comes largely down to the moderation in practice. But insofar as the moderators look to the CoC for guidance, I feel this is an aspect at least worth considering, and I hope it will be. I do want the only site that I have ever paid a subscription fee for in all my years of Internet use since the 1990s to be a friendly and welcoming community (an ideal that I realize I myself haven't always exactly lived up to). But I've seen how setting oneself up for "Safe Space" overreach can release the furies of misguided righteousness, and it's not a pretty sight.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked