New Code of Conduct

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

Surprised that the rules were made to be more relaxed to be honest.

Though a quick check of the old rules shows there was stuff in it about not having illegal acts in posts, yet that thread with a video of a policeman getting shot in the head remained un-edited (another quick check shows it's still un-edited) and un-banned, despite it being reported multiple times.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what these new relaxed rules do to the forum.

The rules seem much more simplified. I won't lie, I have literally never read the previous CoC before. They were way too long to slog through the whole thing. I may have skimmed them, at most. I generally boiled them down to "Don't be a dick." Anytime I wrote a post, I would ask, "Am I being a dick?" and edit or delete as necessary. However, these new rules are fairly easy to read and understand, so I applaud this change.

I also applaud adding "passive aggressive" posts to the CoC. I can't count the number of times I have seen someone insult, but not actually insult, someone and get away free and clear. Meanwhile, the person they insulted would get angry and get a warning or worse. But it is obvious to everyone that the first poster instigated it.

Truth be told, I may have made such posts in the past, but that was generally because I wasn't going to let deceitful or disrespectful posts go unanswered. And I knew I could get away with it. I was still nowhere near as bad as others on this site were (some of whom seem to be passive aggressive as a default). So I am happy to see that change. Hopefully, it gets enforced and the forums become much more pleasant, as a result.

Pluvia:
Though a quick check of the old rules shows there was stuff in it about not having illegal acts in posts, yet that thread with a video of a policeman getting shot in the head remained un-edited (another quick check shows it's still un-edited) and un-banned, despite it being reported multiple times.

Can you post the link in the Moderator's Discussion Group, so I or another mod can take another look at it?

Thanks!

NewClassic:
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.

I must say, I object to that. Revival is always better than repeat.

NewClassic:
On perversions: Detail is key. The more accurately or intimately you detail a going-on, the more it'll skirt foul of the Code of Conduct. PG-13 isn't a bad guide to think of. Implied fetishistic discussion or "I really enjoy the look of [body part]." is pretty okay. "My favorite thing about rope bondage is the specific interplay between [body part] and gravity, and how it <elicits response> of [intimate discussion of arousal reaction, and further detailing of the desired response to sexual activity]." would be over the line.

With that as the rule, aren't we going to get problems how a BDSM focussed sexual orientation will always involve atributes and elements that conservative-minded people regard as perverted? It's an integral part of that sexual orientation after all. Banning detailed discussion of that, could lead to a de facto ban on discussing the sexual orientation itself in any meaningful way, because (explicit) details are far more an integral part over there.

Kind of how it's hard to discuss homosexuality without involving the implication of sex with someone of the same gender, something that's also regarded as 'perverted' by some conservative-minded people.

I'm pretty sure shutting down discussion of an entire sexual orientation is not the intention here, but this could do with further elaboration. Or perhaps a solution where context explicitly matters so that "I think I'm into kinky because [somewhat explicit details]" is alright but "Wow guys, listen to the cool [explicit details] I've done this weekend!" is against the rules.

Could be I'm overreacting and reading more in this than there is, so disclosure on my own frame of mind: everywhere I look I see conservatives kicking sexual minorities into the corner and censoring them using the exact same "We tolerate the orientation itself, but all these acts belonging with it are perverted and banned". Kinksters in particular, with convictions and bans in Belgium and the UK, and myself currently finding a customer in a Dutch kinky foundation that's being shut down through abuse of anti-prostitution laws.
But somehow I can't shake the impression that "Don't discuss explicit acts" could potentially result in problems for people for who discussing that is necessary to express their sexual orientation at all.

Could we have a bit of an open discussion on what's too detailed when it comes to kink?

Jamash:
Under what country's or state's jurisdiction will things be considered illegal or a crime? Is it illegal where you live, illegal in the US, or illegal in North Carolina where the Escapist is based?

Also, just how closely will this ruling be applied?

For example, in a discussion about the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe or some of Donald Trump's policies in the US, the subject of illegal immigrants and illegal immigration will come up.

Illegal immigration and crossing or breaking through another country's border is illegal by definition, so if someone were to post footage of some of these illegal immigrants (such as video journalism from the migrant camp in Calais or tensions and action at a border as migrants attempt to illegally cross a fence or board a vehicle), then they would be posting footage of a crime. Also, if someone were to express the view that they believed migrants should have the right to enter other countries irrespective of borders or the proper channels, then they would be advocating an illegal act.

Would such posting footage of and advocating these illegal acts and crimes be met with an immediate ban with no possibility of appeal, or would the degree of illegality of these illegal acts and the amount of zero tolerance to be applied to such posts be up to Moderator's discretion and personal and/or moral interpretation of the laws being broken?

What about if someone posted a video in which someone was technically assaulted, or in which a group of people were partaking in an illegal gathering or committing acts of vandalism?

What about video that contained speech that may be considered hate speech in one region, but which is directed at or critical of a group of people who aren't protected by Hate Crimes legislation in some areas, and which is protected as Free Speech in another area? How about if this video of illegal hate speech was posted in order to critique it?

Also, on the subject of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other accusations of bigotry or prejudice, what are the definitions of these terms under the CoC, or are they defined by the person making the accusation who felt offended?

There's a lot of unpacking to do with these examples, so their specificity makes having universal answers difficult.

For the most part, on the discussion or footage of illegal acts, assume that for the purposes of webhosting, illegal items are a problem. Any links to hosts of pirated content, websites to resell stolen items or hacking tools, or such things is not permitted. If it's possible for The Escapist, DEFY Media, or the Escapist webhosts to be sued, subpeonaed, or visited by the police is going to be material that's disallowed on the forums.

Further, on the subject of good taste. Things like Daily Motion videos of beheadings, violent riots, or any particularly gory footage (including surgery videos, etc.) are all going to be deemed subject ill-suited for the Escapist forums.

As for other regions' definitions of hate crimes, that will depend entirely on how well those definitions mesh with the general understandings of hate speech of the userbase and moderation team. A lot of material that would be disallowed in other contexts is understandable for critiques or commentary. For that, it will depend more on framing than on subject material. If the material in question is liable to grossly offend, then it's possible that even for critique, it would be removed. But likely not with infraction attached, unless that goodwill is abused repeatedly, seemingly for the intent to offend. In those cases, Rule 0 will apply.

As for the offending, it'll depend on an interplay between the result (did the person being addressed feel offended) and the moderator's understanding of that offense. There are some who will be more sensitive to things than a majority of others, and in those cases, there will need to be some moderation of tone to find a middle ground (or use of ignore feature, messaging discussion to agree to disagree, etc.).

It's hard to know without more context how these things will go explicitly, but hopefully that's enough to go on.

LostGryphon:
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.

I may just be an old fart on the mod team, but I've actually had several of those weeks before. It's not fun, but certainly not unfamiliar territory for the old and gray among us. I'm sure n0e and FileTrekker have had their share of them from the GameFront forums as well.

Side Note: What's the policy on avatars?

Same rules as would exist in posts. Keep it PG-13, avoid excessive sexual content or violence, don't be offensive, but otherwise you're golden.

Superbeast:
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?

This has come up before, and it's something we (moderators) discuss pretty regularly with community management and the Tech team. Typically speaking, it's something that we want to work toward, but are other things that need more immediate addressing (either on community side with CoC works or internal administration, or on Tech side with invisible works), so it's a discussion that is always a little withdrawn.

Safe to say we're talking about it, and the more we work through getting there, the faster something like it will come about. I make no promises, but it's something we're looking into.

Thanks for the suggestion!

StatusNil:
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. ... 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.

In this case, the clinical model for safe space doesn't apply with that much rigor. In practice, we're looking for a space in which no one feels persecuted. Safe space in the sense of a place that neither adds to detracts from someone's ability to have a discussion or interact in a way that feels reasonable. Everyone has more or less the same respect to speak their mind where others can do the same.

Anyone using any wording, belief system, or power to mistreat others is going to fall foul of the Code of Conduct, regardless of what they're wielding.

Saltyk:
Hopefully, it gets enforced and the forums become much more pleasant, as a result.

There's going to be an adjustment period, as with anything else. Failing anything else, you can always message me (or really any the other mods) with specific questions or posts you really want to highlight as problematic, and we'll be happy to look at it. If you want us to get back to you and speak to why we do or don't think a post should be moderated, feel free to ask as well, and we likely will. I know I certainly will.

Souplex:

NewClassic:
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.

I must say, I object to that. Revival is always better than repeat.

Contact page is going to be your best resource for that. Or a message to n0e.

sheppie:
With that as the rule, aren't we going to get problems how a BDSM focussed sexual orientation will always involve atributes and elements that conservative-minded people regard as perverted? It's an integral part of that sexual orientation after all. Banning detailed discussion of that, could lead to a de facto ban on discussing the sexual orientation itself in any meaningful way, because (explicit) details are far more an integral part over there. ... But somehow I can't shake the impression that "Don't discuss explicit acts" could potentially result in problems for people for who discussing that is necessary to express their sexual orientation at all.

Could we have a bit of an open discussion on what's too detailed when it comes to kink?

Use discomfort and courtesy as your guide. Bear in mind, according to the forum account requirements, there will be users between the ages of 13 and 18 posting and reading on these forums. So, any explicit discussion of sexual acts themselves is going to be taken with a grain or two of salt, given their potential audience. Most parents wouldn't be happy with their younger children reading about the detailed particulars of knife play or auto-erotic asphyxiation, so naturally there is a bit of extra effort to keep that sort of discussion from being something a younger user might trip over accidentally.

If the discussion goes into detailed aspects of the sexual practice itself, as in details of what to do during sex or on which parts to perform what actions, then it's probably not something suited for the public forums. That would be a better fit for usergroups, I suppose, or an external source that has more freedom to discuss the detailed aspects of adult activities.

As for what others consider "perverted" as to belief, there's naturally going to be an amount of leeway. Homosexuality, the existence of kink or fetish belief, and the discussion of personal values ("Being a furry is important to because..." style statements) aren't disallowed, nor is really any personal belief. The details that are prohibited are largely for the comfort of others. There are many sexual practices I don't particularly want to read about, and if you're likely to discomfort others by the exposure to the details in your post, it's safer just not to post it.

As for what you do in messaging or closed usergroups, that's more free reign. No harassment, stalking, or illegal stuff, but beyond that: you do you.

n0e:

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.[/quote]

Jews are called a race because of the Hebrew bloodline. Most Hebrews have a direct genetic lineage and it's rather difficult to become a Jew other than through birth, meaning that while it's not entirely true that Hebrew is a "race," it is close enough for jazz. This isn't so much a lose definition of race as it is referencing two different things: Hebrew culture and Hebrew heritage.

However, I'm not here to argue Semitic semantics. Just alliteration. >.>

I would think, and I'm not trying to backseat mod here, so please take this as an attempt at being constructive, that "loosely defined" would kind of be bad for a code of conduct. I mean, there have been several responses following mine that sort of detail a similar concern. I'm going to quote ThatOTherGirl here:

ThatOtherGirl:
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.

Because I've both been there and done that on this site.

And i also appreciate that you've said with other things that "that was then, this is now." This is true and I understand that. But there's a history on this site of stuff relating to gays and transfolk sliding under the radar. We've been accused of being sick, sideshow freaks, child molesters and dangerous to ourselves and others (though I suppose molesting children also falls under that) without any sort of moderation or warning. Now, I'm not trying to point fingers. It's even completely possible that such reports have been buried in the mod queue, since I don't fully understand what's up with that. But we've had people moderated for reacting to such statements, which doesn't exactly seem like the rules were working to protect.

Less specificity seems to make this a more likely outcome.

And from the other end, it would strike me that it would make it more of a headache for staff, given that people probably aren't going to consider these things racial or sexual in nature and might have a bit of a cow over being modded for it. We're living in a culture where even in the US a quarter of people don't think LGBT individuals should be allowed to exist, and it's quite easy to find rather casual homo/transphobia as a result. But maybe I'm completely wrong, and won't ramp anything up.

On the other hand, I do appreciate that the rules aren't longer than a set of D&D core books.

n0e:
-removed quotes-

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.

Well that's pretty clear-cut and clarified then.

A dictatorship need not be bad perse especially when it comes to maintaining a degree of order.
Ask the Romans, they thrived under it.
I feel the harder and still appropriate term shows how strict the boundaries actually are and that's fine, I can understand if the word gives a bad vibe but it shouldn't really it's just a system.

(I hope I didn't get misunderstood again, I'm sort of a factual to the point person and I've learned people can view that as being testy and strange here).

IceForce:

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.

Huh, I must have missed that. Guess I shouldn't have taken inu-kun's word for it, my bad.

But even with that in place the problem still seems to be there. Most long term users, quality posters too, are really close to a permanent and it really is because they have been around for a long time.

I mean, inu-kun has been around forever. I rarely agree with them, but they are a fairly good poster and the community would be diminished if they are banned. It really does seem like the system is heavily stacked against the long time and frequent posters.

NewClassic:
There are many sexual practices I don't particularly want to read about, and if you're likely to discomfort others by the exposure to the details in your post, it's safer just not to post it.

There goes my plan to have a thread about my Justin Bieber fetish...

NewClassic:
That would be a better fit for usergroups, I suppose, or an external source that has more freedom to discuss the detailed aspects of adult activities.

That could be a way out of that dilemma, but would a post like "I've read your question about knifeplay, and you can read detailed stuff about that in this user group [link]" be okay?

It's a pretty direct reference and not very hard to click on to read that detail anyway. I guess that would be even more relevant if someone ansers a question by linking to an external website that contains that content that would be against CoC here.

Is the label "contains detailed discussion of X and Y" enough?

NewClassic:
As for what others consider "perverted" as to belief, there's naturally going to be an amount of leeway.

That puts most of my concerns to bed. Thanks.

sheppie:
That could be a way out of that dilemma, but would a post like "I've read your question about knifeplay, and you can read detailed stuff about that in this user group [link]" be okay? ... Is the label "contains detailed discussion of X and Y" enough?

Honestly, that sounds like the kind of thing that would be better left to messaging. Starting threads specifically about certain aspects of sexual, fetishistic, or kink play seems like it would flirt hard with the PG-13 line, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion that might be problematic for readers.

I'm not opposed to saying things like "We have a usergroup specifically for certain aspects of BDSM, [link here]." if it comes up in conversation otherwise, but it does sound like you're looking for some semblance of carte blanche in starting sexually-centered discussion. I really don't think this is the setting for dedicated discussions on those topics.

Really, speak abstractly, and you should be okay. If you want to start a discussion that details the intricacies of a particular type of sex-play, this isn't the right venue.

sheppie:

NewClassic:
As for what others consider "perverted" as to belief, there's naturally going to be an amount of leeway.

That puts most of my concerns to bed. Thanks.

Glad to hear it. "To bed" is a great place for sexual concerns.

NewClassic:

sheppie:
That could be a way out of that dilemma, but would a post like "I've read your question about knifeplay, and you can read detailed stuff about that in this user group [link]" be okay? ... Is the label "contains detailed discussion of X and Y" enough?

Honestly, that sounds like the kind of thing that would be better left to messaging. Starting threads specifically about certain aspects of sexual, fetishistic, or kink play seems like it would flirt hard with the PG-13 line, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion that might be problematic for readers.

I'm not opposed to saying things like "We have a usergroup specifically for certain aspects of BDSM, [link here]." if it comes up in conversation otherwise, but it does sound like you're looking for some semblance of carte blanche in starting sexually-centered discussion. I really don't think this is the setting for dedicated discussions on those topics.

Really, speak abstractly, and you should be okay. If you want to start a discussion that details the intricacies of a particular type of sex-play, this isn't the right venue.

sheppie:

NewClassic:
As for what others consider "perverted" as to belief, there's naturally going to be an amount of leeway.

That puts most of my concerns to bed. Thanks.

Glad to hear it. "To bed" is a great place for sexual concerns.

I'm not a prude, and I don't care what gets posted. Still, I have to wonder at the motive of a BDSM thread on a forum about playing games and watching movies. If it's in the context of 50 Shades of Gray or a game, that's one thing. If it's just a discussion of how to tie someone up, then maybe it's just the wrong forum for it. There are, after all, so many forums that just devolve into lonely members swapping kinks.

Well, lots to comment on, but for now I will stick to a few points since they were brought up recently.

1st, rule zero. Yes, I get the idea of it is a joke hyperbole, and as a D&D fan, I'm quite familiar with rule myself. It is sort of tone-deaf though, given the issues with confusion and inconsistency that many people have complained about and the frustrations that has caused. Comes off as pretty hostile and needlessly confrontational when viewed by those previously unhappy with how things went, and likely viewing new changes wearily as it is.

I get the idea of having a chain of command and having users respect the mods' authority instead of arguing with them or in mod chat outright. But people make mistakes and rule zero runs counter to that. The wording that people are not allowed to argue in an appeal also sounds rather odd in the same way. Isn't the point of an appeal to argue your case that the action was unjustified in the first place?

2nd, the strike decrease rate being lowered. The rules are more relaxed, so the strikes should be decreased a little more slowly, makes sense. Has a few issues though. For one it doesn't take into account existing strikes because of the old rule system and issues there. I don't suppose old infractions are re-opened to new appeals, so I have to wonder if a delay on the change over wouldn't be better on this change just so fewer people are left out in the cold about it all. Sort of doubt the new management will do a celebratory "amnesty" for a strike or two just so everyone can get down to a reasonable rate before they try the rules to commemorate the new CoC and management. Also, as other users have said, the time-required based strike decrease has always been a great determent for community participation and continued involvement, and the change seems it will only make it more potent. You get a strike, you need to wait 6 months for it to clear. This is the same if you post a million times or never for that time. The fact that strikes take so long to decrease actively seems to punish more frequent posters (more posts increase odds one will be hit with a strike), and as I myself have had to deal with, you can get strikes chaining together at the 5 month period and never see a decrease for it. 3 of my current strikes are from over 4 years ago because of this. It is uncommon, to be sure, though still another flaw with the current lifebar system.

Going to toss out some ideas here in a spoiler about what could work as ideas to tackle the issues there. I don't want to derail the topic itself, so please don't anyone turn them into argue points here, but still felt they should be thrown out where relevant.

Finally, going to comment on the passive aggressive rule. Not sure how it will be executed, but I look forward to seeing it used to help prevent the sort of attitude and toxicity that has been an issue.

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.

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

I can dig that, a fresh look every 12 months or so may help keep things a bit more civil around the place.

MarsAtlas:
What is the ettiquette when it comes to spoilers?

I'm also interested in this.

I've also have another question:

Off-Topic discussions. Interestingly, one appeared right in this thread[1] and the policy on these has never really been clear, yet most other forums I've been on, off-topic tends to be where the "minor issue offences" are if not just a tad lower - comments at least tangentially connected to the topic are certainly allowed and even one, two, or several would be tolerated but excessive offtopic posting is punished.

[1] which reminded me to ask

runic knight:
2nd, the strike decrease rate being lowered.

Wait, how has it been decreased? It has always been 6 months for -1 level, 2 years for a reset, ever since I joined, at least.

Here is the previous version of the CoC and it's the very last section called "Amnesty".

Here is the version from the 11th of October 2011 - its the most recent snapshot that the Wayback Machine had from before my joining - this was the version at the time I registered.

Finally, here is the version from the 15th of May 2011 which is the closest one to your join date that was archived.

The same policy seems to have been in place for about half a decade now - it hasn't been lowered.

As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for the CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even more +respect from me.

Dirty Cop James funs:
As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect from for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even +respect from me.

Has passive aggression really been that much of a plague here? I think ever post I've seen on the topic is somewhere between positive, and downright grateful for the rule. What happened here?

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Dirty Cop James funs:
As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect from for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even +respect from me.

Has passive aggression really been that much of a plague here? I think ever post I've seen on the topic is somewhere between positive, and downright grateful for the rule. What happened here?

Seeing by your join-date, I assume you're probably new here.

To make things short and sweet: There are some people here that intentionally pick their words to belittle or insult others without actually resolving to classical insults. They do that to avoid moderator wrath and moderators can't do much because they're technically not breaking any rules by any strict definition. But with rule zero and the addition of passive-aggressive and overly competitive behaviour to personal conduct, we might see some butts finally receive the much deserved spanks they're waiting for.

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Dirty Cop James funs:
As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect from for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even +respect from me.

Has passive aggression really been that much of a plague here? I think ever post I've seen on the topic is somewhere between positive, and downright grateful for the rule. What happened here?

When the whole gamergate thing was at it's peak for a significant amount of time tons of people were taking pot shots at each other, dragging old arguments into new threads, that sort of thing, but doing it all in a way that was passive aggressive and didn't quite violate the rules. The Escapist back then was very into trying to moderate based on a precise set of rules, so it was pretty easy for a poster to go exactly far enough to be a obvious toxic jerk but never see a warning. Calling out this behavior for what it was could also be dangerous due to the "don't call people trolls/names" rule.

For a while it seemed like passive aggressive potshots were the most common type of post on these forums. Regulars have been trying to reduce this problem ever since.

Like many others I actually stepped away from the site for quite a while for this exact reason. I am one of the few that came back eventually. (When I came back I used a new account as I had started presenting trans online and my old account was easily tracked back to me by people I am not out to yet, which is why my post history is short.)

FileTrekker:

Pluvia:
Though a quick check of the old rules shows there was stuff in it about not having illegal acts in posts, yet that thread with a video of a policeman getting shot in the head remained un-edited (another quick check shows it's still un-edited) and un-banned, despite it being reported multiple times.

Can you post the link in the Moderator's Discussion Group, so I or another mod can take another look at it?

Thanks!

It's over a year old now and has been locked thanks to the new necro locking system, so would there be any point? In fact it looks like the video even got removed from the website that was hosting it, despite the video being on the Escapist in a thread that reached over 11 pages.

LostGryphon:

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.

As much as I'd like to take credit, the section I was talking about hasn't actually been changed. Looking back, the "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" heading probably always used the word "discriminatory." This does raise the question as to why the "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" heading exists because it seems to be essentially redundant.

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)

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.

Wait, you also removed low-content from the CoC?

+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect+respect-res&$2.

Shit.... I think I broke my respects. :<

ThatOtherGirl:

Like many others I actually stepped away from the site for quite a while for this exact reason. I am one of the few that came back eventually. (When I came back I used a new account as I had started presenting trans online and my old account was easily tracked back to me by people I am not out to yet, which is why my post history is short.)

Wait, Queen Michael, is that you? If not, then come to this thread and call me a cuck and an idiot for making such a grievous mistake. Also give me a manga recommendation; I've been hungering for a new mango to read.

Dirty Cop James funs:
Wait, Queen Michael, is that you? If not, then come to this thread and call me a cuck and an idiot for making such a grievous mistake. Also give me a manga recommendation; I've been hungering for a new mango to read.

Haha, no, that is not me. I would rather not say my old account name, it can still be tracked easily back to me.

But I can give you a manga recommendation. You ever heard of The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer? It is fantastic. I don't want to tell you anything about it because even the reveal of what it is was fantastically handled. In general terms though, think action/fantasy manga set in modern day.

ThatOtherGirl:

But I can give you a manga recommendation. You ever heard of The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer? It is fantastic. I don't want to tell you anything about it because even the reveal of what it is was fantastically handled. In general terms though, think action/fantasy manga set in modern day.

Didn't hear of it, but adding it to the list as we speak. And because the low-content post rule is gone, I can make short responses without getting modded! :'D

And 'ey, since you're trans and we're having a mango sharing thing: Ever heard of Bokura no Hentai? And before you ask, no; it is not a hentai. Or least that's what a perverted m8 of mine says. (Hush, Twilby, I know you're into ALL kinds of creepy sex things!)

Dirty Cop James funs:

ThatOtherGirl:

But I can give you a manga recommendation. You ever heard of The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer? It is fantastic. I don't want to tell you anything about it because even the reveal of what it is was fantastically handled. In general terms though, think action/fantasy manga set in modern day.

Didn't hear of it, but adding it to the list as we speak. And because the low-content post rule is gone, I can make short response without getting modded! :'D

And 'ey, since you're trans and we're having a mango sharing thing: Ever heard of Bokura no Hentai? And before you ask, no; it is not a hentai. Or least that's what perverted m8 of mine says. (Hush, Twilby, I know you're into all kinds of creepy sex things!)

I had not heard of it. I'll put it on the list though.

ThatOtherGirl:

I had not heard of it. I'll put it on the list though.

You'll like it, me thinks. It's about three cross-dressers, each cross-dressing for their own reasons.

ThatOtherGirl:

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Dirty Cop James funs:
As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect from for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even +respect from me.

Has passive aggression really been that much of a plague here? I think ever post I've seen on the topic is somewhere between positive, and downright grateful for the rule. What happened here?

When the whole gamergate thing was at it's peak for a significant amount of time tons of people were taking pot shots at each other, dragging old arguments into new threads, that sort of thing, but doing it all in a way that was passive aggressive and didn't quite violate the rules. The Escapist back then was very into trying to moderate based on a precise set of rules, so it was pretty easy for a poster to go exactly far enough to be a obvious toxic jerk but never see a warning. Calling out this behavior for what it was could also be dangerous due to the "don't call people trolls/names" rule.

For a while it seemed like passive aggressive potshots were the most common type of post on these forums. Regulars have been trying to reduce this problem ever since.

Like many others I actually stepped away from the site for quite a while for this exact reason. I am one of the few that came back eventually. (When I came back I used a new account as I had started presenting trans online and my old account was easily tracked back to me by people I am not out to yet, which is why my post history is short.)

No wonder they want a rule spelling it out. If I wanted that kind of atmosphere, I have some wasp friends in a strained marriage.

Dirty Cop James funs:

Richard Gozin-Yu:

Dirty Cop James funs:
As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect from for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even +respect from me.

Has passive aggression really been that much of a plague here? I think ever post I've seen on the topic is somewhere between positive, and downright grateful for the rule. What happened here?

Seeing by your join-date, I assume you're probably new here.

To make things short and sweet: There are some people here that intentionally pick their words to belittle or insult others without actually resolving to classical insults. They do that to avoid moderator wrath and moderators can't do much because they're technically not breaking any rules by any strict definition. But with rule zero and the addition of passive-aggressive and overly competitive behaviour to personal conduct, we might see some butts finally receive the much deserved spanks they're waiting for.

New from GameTrailers, and thanks for the explanation. It sounds like there needs to be a new tone set, and this is a better way to go about it than fire and brimstone.

NewClassic:

This has come up before, and it's something we (moderators) discuss pretty regularly with community management and the Tech team. Typically speaking, it's something that we want to work toward, but are other things that need more immediate addressing (either on community side with CoC works or internal administration, or on Tech side with invisible works), so it's a discussion that is always a little withdrawn.

Safe to say we're talking about it, and the more we work through getting there, the faster something like it will come about. I make no promises, but it's something we're looking into.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Fair enough that other stuff wants to be sorted first.

Oooh, I thought of another suggestion! Not really code-of-conduct based but more moderation generally.

On a lot of other websites I am on, the moderators pick a particular text-colour to use as their "mod voice" to help distinguish between regular posting and posting to redirect a thread. It is particularly useful once you get into quote-chains and stuff, where a mod can clearly steer in a reply to one group and participate on-topic in the same post. It is also helpful for the rare instance that a moderator has to edit a post, the notice/context can be clearly displayed thanks to the difference in font colour.

I also know that in the past there has been some confusion when someone (be it mod or staff) have joined in a light-hearted thread and joked around about banning people, and someone else comes in and misunderstood and gone on a moderation rant.

Now, other forums let mods pick their own colours because they have activated forum signatures where such can be explained, so maybe there should just be one colour on the CoC for the mods to use?

FileTrekker:
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.

Sorry about the derail. Added the person to my ignore list, as I got the idea with their last post that I was giving attention where it only caused more issues. Adding gasoline to the fire if you will.

Anyways I still do have a specific concern:

The Code of Conduct says this for Infraction Offenses:
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)

-Bunch of unrelated stuff-

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.

We have homophobia, racism, and sexism specifically mentioned, but not transphobia. I've seen a lot of casual transphobia, and thinly veiled transphobia, even recently... It does make me uncomfortable posting here some times. I think that's one thing that specifically needs to be mentioned in this case, because I've seen transphobia uncontested quite a bit, so long as it's just vague enough. Not to mention that I've talked with a lot of trans members of the board, it seems a lot of trans users have abandoned the forums because of anti-trans hostility in the past. Kind of worries me.

Along with that I think we need a rule about keeping political and religious discussions civil, I've seen them get really nasty. Granted both subjects tend to be emotionally charged, which is understandable. Still I've seen people's political leanings be used against them outside R&P, as a method to discredit someone. That's not really a civil way to have a discussion.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
(Snip).

That doesn't seem necessary; you could just put it under bigotry or hate speech to keep the word count down and cover all the bases, especially since the CoC's now being changed to better address behaviour like like attacking someone's character, ridicule, mockery and uncivil muppetry, this approach makes more sense to me. As something that is not as well understood as, say, homosexuality or bisexuality, I personally thought that most of the comments I recall seeing about trans. people were made from a position of ignorance rather than sincerely malicious attempts to dehumanize them. I don't recall seeing the hostility you've mentioned, but you can rest assured that to the best of the mods' ability, it'll be met with the same treatment given to other pernicious behaviour.

The ability to write an explanatory note for why you're reporting a post is a popular request that should hopefully be added in the near future, but in the meantime please forward any examples of what you've described to a moderator for review.

Barbas:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
(Snip).

That doesn't seem necessary; you could just put it under bigotry or hate speech to keep the word count down and cover all the bases, especially since the CoC's now being changed to better address behaviour like like attacking someone's character, ridicule, mockery and uncivil muppetry, this approach makes more sense to me. As something that is not as well understood as, say, homosexuality or bisexuality, I personally thought that most of the comments I recall seeing about trans. people were made from a position of ignorance rather than sincerely malicious attempts to dehumanize them. I don't recall seeing the hostility you've mentioned, but you can rest assured that to the best of the mods' ability, it'll be met with the same treatment given to other pernicious behaviour.

The ability to write an explanatory note for why you're reporting a post is a popular request that should hopefully be added in the near future, but in the meantime please forward any examples of what you've described to a moderator for review.

The problem is that people use an act of ignorance to indulge in both homophobia and transphobia. Most of what comes off as coming "from a position of ignorance", is also used to justify blatant transphobic behavior that is extremely damaging to those who experience it. Like intentional misgendering and making patently false biological assertions in an attempt to damage trans people, then claiming a position of ignorance. They're doing it specifically to get away with insulting, offending, and antagonizing trans folk. People making damaging assertions to invalidate other people isn't something you can say is "just because of ignorance". Aside from that in practice, when there aren't specific protections for a marginalized group, that marginalized group rarely sees justice done in situations where they're wronged.

Also theres the 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' standard to go on. This is double when people claim ignorance in order to attack groups in a round-about way. Like people who claim ignorance of scientific backing for trans folk as an excuse for misgendeing us, call us sick for seeking transition, and referring to sexual reassignment surgery as mutilation...

Seriously there's a proclamation to misgender trans folk, referring to the choice to transition as being an "ailing choice" as in a choice of poor health, misgendering of Lilly Wachowski in a thread with a bunch of trans posters, and referring to SRS as mutilation. You can't chock all of that up to plain ignorance.

So I'm a bit less than satisfied with the answer provided.

DoPo:

runic knight:
2nd, the strike decrease rate being lowered.

Wait, how has it been decreased? It has always been 6 months for -1 level, 2 years for a reset, ever since I joined, at least.

Here is the previous version of the CoC and it's the very last section called "Amnesty".

Here is the version from the 11th of October 2011 - its the most recent snapshot that the Wayback Machine had from before my joining - this was the version at the time I registered.

Finally, here is the version from the 15th of May 2011 which is the closest one to your join date that was archived.

The same policy seems to have been in place for about half a decade now - it hasn't been lowered.

huh, wonder why I was thinking it dropped two. ah well, the points raised still stand about the issues with that whole thing I guess.

runic knight:

DoPo:

runic knight:
2nd, the strike decrease rate being lowered.

Wait, how has it been decreased? It has always been 6 months for -1 level, 2 years for a reset, ever since I joined, at least.

Here is the previous version of the CoC and it's the very last section called "Amnesty".

Here is the version from the 11th of October 2011 - its the most recent snapshot that the Wayback Machine had from before my joining - this was the version at the time I registered.

Finally, here is the version from the 15th of May 2011 which is the closest one to your join date that was archived.

The same policy seems to have been in place for about half a decade now - it hasn't been lowered.

huh, wonder why I was thinking it dropped two. ah well, the points raised still stand about the issues with that whole thing I guess.

If they're going to commit to the "Health Bar" idea, which I think is a bad idea by the way, it doesn't make sense to make it reset too quickly.

The reasons why it's a bad idea are pretty obvious though, and begin with the problem of making every "bar worthy" offense fundamentally identical. Getting tipped into a suspension or ban for any one, is the cumulative effect of the ones before it. It also means that a collection of relatively minor mistakes are ultimately treated the same as a collection of more deliberate acts. Most of all though, it means that the last few warnings take on a stupid significance. I can't believe that mods treat the warning that bans someone, like the warning that gets them their first green mark. And yet, that first green mark and the last one, are equally weighted in this system.

There is a reason why basically no sites use this, in any form, ever, and never really have. It's not like it's a new idea, it's just a really bad idea. It has all of the downsides of mandatory minimum sentences, and none of the potential benefits. Any sense of accountability it provides is bound to be illusory, which I gather has been true if the reaction to the passive aggression rule is anything to go by. I'm sure it's just going to stay since it's always been there, and coming from another site I guess I don't have much input.

It's not a good system though.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked