New Code of Conduct

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

If you have a genuine concern about a post that was shortly after edited, and want the staff to review it, then privately flag it up with the staff. This is not that much to ask and we can deal with it effectively. :)

The above is not a particularly great example of how to handle these problems.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Yes indeed, back to the topic at hand.

Drathnoxis:
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?

I notice this hasn't been answered. But before you answer, a bit of background: (because many of the mods are new)

The previous COC stated "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction." A LOT of users slipped up on this rule, because they (incorrectly) believed that calling an actual troll a troll would be allowed. (Spoiler warning: It wasn't allowed.)

And that's the thing, there are trolls on this forum, as there are on any forum; one cannot deny their existence. So it always seemed a bit silly to moderate people for calling a spade a spade.
Every so often, this forum does get the odd troll thread, and it always seemed like the people who correctly pointed this out in the thread got moderated, while the troll (often) didn't.

Has this changed? Because I notice "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction" is no longer an explicit rule anymore. Are we allowed to identify possible trolls in threads now?

theSovietConnection:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
*SNIP*

If I might propose a compromise between you and the other poster, perhaps reword the rule to this?

Discrimination and Perverted Remarks:

Discrimination will not be tolerated on these forums, particularly in regards to racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.

Perverse remarks will be subject to the PG-13 standard.

As far as my comments on the changes, I like 'em, particularly the addition of rule 0. It'll be a nice change to see that people can't skirt the rules by "Attacking the idea and not the person, but I'm totally attacking the person".

Your compromise is actually perfect, I think that's a very sensible way to handle it. Especially because it doesn't exclude people who are cis, straight, white, and/or Christian, but also includes ever one else too. All too often people try to frame a request for protection as discrimination against the majority. Your idea with fully inclusive language is absolutely perfect, I'm now kicking my self for not thinking to word it the way you did.

As for your own comment, I just hope it doesn't get too contentious, because sometimes people(myself included) don't frame our arguments the best, so it can look like we're striking out at someone personally, when it's not the case.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

theSovietConnection:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
*SNIP*

If I might propose a compromise between you and the other poster, perhaps reword the rule to this?

Discrimination and Perverted Remarks:

Discrimination will not be tolerated on these forums, particularly in regards to racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.

Perverse remarks will be subject to the PG-13 standard.

As far as my comments on the changes, I like 'em, particularly the addition of rule 0. It'll be a nice change to see that people can't skirt the rules by "Attacking the idea and not the person, but I'm totally attacking the person".

Your compromise is actually perfect, I think that's a very sensible way to handle it. Especially because it doesn't exclude people who are cis, straight, white, and/or Christian, but also includes ever one else too. All too often people try to frame a request for protection as discrimination against the majority. Your idea with fully inclusive language is absolutely perfect, I'm now kicking my self for not thinking to word it the way you did.

As for your own comment, I just hope it doesn't get too contentious, because sometimes people(myself included) don't frame our arguments the best, so it can look like we're striking out at someone personally, when it's not the case.

Well said. Thats the hazard of using the same method to communicate emotionally as well as conceptually or logically. Its like having to use a the same neck to speak, drink, eat and breathe through. Sometimes an emotional response comes out when a logical one is intended.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
As for your own comment, I just hope it doesn't get too contentious, because sometimes people(myself included) don't frame our arguments the best, so it can look like we're striking out at someone personally, when it's not the case.

I'm not entirely certain the users who've been here for a while would have much to worry about. The mods who've been here would know your tone, and know whether or not you actually meant anything hostile with what you said. As for the new mods here from GT, they'd learn from the seasoned mods, and will hopefully learn to mod accordingly.

As for your endorsement of my rewording of the discrimination rule, I thank you for it. It does mean a lot, whether I can translate that through text or not.

EDIT: Goddamn drunk me misspelling things

theSovietConnection:
As for your endorsement of my rewording of the discrimination rule, I thank you for it. It does mean a lot, whether I can translate that through text or not.

This is why I tend to use things like emoticons, or specific wordings to imply that. People who've seen me post know I use ~ at the end of certain sentences. I doubt it's correct to do, but it gives a little flourish I tend to find that implies a positive feeling to the sentence itself (Unless worded differently to imply otherwise). I do these things to ensure tone is never confused. Cause as you said, it's hard to do so on the internet!

I can certainly understand if people see them and sigh, but when tone is hard to see on the internet... I'll take whatever tools I can.

Edit: If this seems kinda odd to just randomly hear from me in such detail, well... The issue several people around here seem to have is understanding people's tones. So... relevant? I guess?

theSovietConnection:
As for the new mods here from GT, they'd learn from the seasoned mods, and will hopefully learn to mod accordingly.

Actually, (for anybody who doesn't know) the new mods are here from GameFront the new users are from GameTrailers. FileTrekker here was listed as an administrator, I'm not sure if that means he's on the payroll or not though.

Also I think your rewrite of the rule is good too, but I still think it's redundant with

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)

This one should probably be rewritten to actually be about trolling, because you can be a troll without necessarily discriminating. It's really about getting people riled up for the heck of it, not being a bigot.

FileTrekker:

IceForce:
Wait so, let me get this straight, we can insult anyone we like, as long as we edit our post afterwards?

I didn't say that at all.

Well, kind of.

FileTrekker:
I'd rather have someone blow off a little steam then instantly regret it and correct their mistake then prevent them from doing that

Personally I'd prefer people learn to control themselves. Were it so easy to take an insult back, especially in a forum that instant messages you every time someone quotes you in a way that doesn't receive said update.

In that sense receiving an infraction is a good thing, especially if the person is remorseful. Actually a good gauge of remorse is a willingness to accept reprimand.

It wasn't until I reached my first block of red that I decided to take a look at my posting habits and rethink the situation.

wulf3n:
Personally I'd prefer people learn to control themselves. Were it so easy to take an insult back, especially in a forum that instant messages you every time someone quotes you in a way that doesn't receive said update.

In that sense receiving an infraction is a good thing, especially if the person is remorseful. Actually a good gauge of remorse is a willingness to accept reprimand.

It wasn't until I reached my first block of red that I decided to take a look at my posting habits and rethink the situation.

Granted, it's almost always better for people to consider their speech carefully before posting in an emotionally heated environment. That said, if someone feels bad for saying something rude, even in person, then it almost sounds like you'd be willing to immediately react negatively, and whether or not they apologized or attempted to make amends, the negative reaction is more important than the apology because of what they'd said originally.

That, in itself, is actually just as much of an emotional reaction, just with heavier punitive consequences.

Granted, an apology would've been preferred in the edit (for when the person follows the quote PM back to the thread), but finding a reason to punish just because punishment can be helpful is a bit too Machiavelli for me.

Kross:

IceForce:
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.

To be fair, I almost perma-banned you immediately when you emailed my boss directly about some forum shit (twice I think?), and the mods talked me down (multiple times even, every time you're stressing them out I offer). ;)

Hey, Kross, what are your thoughts regarding external archiving services being used on this site? (such as the one that was used to archive the old COC?)

Because I noticed sometimes it doesn't work, like it's being blocked or something, (perhaps due to an IP ban?)

IceForce:
Yes indeed, back to the topic at hand.

Drathnoxis:
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?

I notice this hasn't been answered. But before you answer, a bit of background: (because many of the mods are new)

The previous COC stated "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction." A LOT of users slipped up on this rule, because they (incorrectly) believed that calling an actual troll a troll would be allowed. (Spoiler warning: It wasn't allowed.)

And that's the thing, there are trolls on this forum, as there are on any forum; one cannot deny their existence. So it always seemed a bit silly to moderate people for calling a spade a spade.
Every so often, this forum does get the odd troll thread, and it always seemed like the people who correctly pointed this out in the thread got moderated, while the troll (often) didn't.

Has this changed? Because I notice "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction" is no longer an explicit rule anymore. Are we allowed to identify possible trolls in threads now?

While I, obviously, can't answer for everyone - at least for myself:

If they're not a troll, then being called one is not going to endear you to them. Some people just have a bad day, or have an unpopular opinion. If they are a troll, then they're going to get off on the resultant excuse to kick off. Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to stick an infraction against someone who accuses someone of trolling, but I'd probably have a word with them about it if anything came of it - and if they persisted in frequently going 'trollololol' despite being spoken to about how unhelpful it was, then we might be looking at infractions being issued. The accusation of itself is, after all, somewhat exploitable - 'everyone's a troll who has an opinion extremely opposed to my own / appears to me to be an idiot' for instance.

There are trolls, as you say there will be some of on every forum. We do need to do things about them. But they have to be dealt with because of an actual behaviour, rather than because of what they are, to avoid the danger of just labelling someone an X and then arbitrarily whacking them with a ban hammer. Status offences, to borrow from real world terminology 'X is a terrorist, therefore...' rather than picking out specific behaviours, tends to be a way of dealing with situations that is open to far too much abuse... regardless of whether the spade is a spade ;)

Drathnoxis:

theSovietConnection:
As for the new mods here from GT, they'd learn from the seasoned mods, and will hopefully learn to mod accordingly.

Actually, (for anybody who doesn't know) the new mods are here from GameFront the new users are from GameTrailers. FileTrekker here was listed as an administrator, I'm not sure if that means he's on the payroll or not though.

Also I think your rewrite of the rule is good too, but I still think it's redundant with

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)

This one should probably be rewritten to actually be about trolling, because you can be a troll without necessarily discriminating. It's really about getting people riled up for the heck of it, not being a bigot.

I dunno, I kinda like that they're cracking down on bigotry in general too.

So I'm now explicitly prohibited from making racist or sexist remarks(even though as a half mexican, being racist, especially towards my own race, is part of my cultural background dangit!) yet I still have to put up with a sizeable majority's obsession over scatological comments and euphemisms? I mean if we are going by what makes us uncomfortable, that's a trend I've never really been a part off yet apparently when it comes to being offensive that always gets a free pass.
And to make it clear, no it wasn't the same in previous TOS, it was worded more loosely:
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks - Remarks such as these are often met with elevated penalties or bans.
Basically the idea was to keep it pg-13 more or less... But there was quite a bit of niggle room.

Contrast this with the more strict wording of new TOS: ANY violation of the following rules will result in an infraction being placed on your account.
And specifically says: 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.
This stops really short of an outright ban and heck it might have been a better idea to go the full monty, as it stands I really don't know what I can get away with now and feel it's going to depend a lot on the particular mod.

To give another example, whereas once I could once quote my dad in saying "Son, I hate the whites, I hate the blacks, I hate the yellows and the browns and every other color underneath the rainbow, but I ESPECIALLY hate those fucking mexicans! Bunch of faggots!" (punchline being we ARE mexicans. And because mexican culture is super macho, you pretty much call everything negative gay or faggot, heck my dad calls me "puto" at least thrice a day), repeating this under the new TOS would qualify me for one offense automatically..

*grumbles*

Frankster:
(Snip).

That example shouldn't have been acceptable to post for even the past several years.

Barbas:

That example shouldn't have been acceptable to post for even the past several years.

Considering I've used this exact quote on at least 4 occasions (if not more, it sums up my views on racism well enough that I often fall back to it) during my time here I guess I should count myself lucky then. Or (I hope) it was pretty clear I wasn't being serious when saying those things, thus I was given a pass which I probably wouldn't get under the new TOS.

Actually, in ALL my time on the escapist, I've only ever gotten 2 warnings, neither of which was for being offensive in any way so...make of that what you will.

Nemmerle:
Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to stick an infraction against someone who accuses someone of trolling,

That's interesting to hear, and a marked change from the way this forum has traditionally been moderated in the past.

To illustrate what I mean, I'll use one of my own infractions as an example: (hell, I've got plenty to choose from!)

The warning has since been lifted, but as you can see, even the mere suggestion that someone might possibly be trolling in any certain particular instance was always met with an automatic infraction, regardless of context. And this example of mine was not unique; it happened like this to other people too. It was almost like the word was being automatically 'word filtered' by a modbot or something.

Anyway so, based on what you're saying, posts like mine linked above would no longer be hit with an "automatic infraction" like they used to under the old COC. That's good to know.

Just so long as all the mods are on the same page, of course. Because if moderator 'X' is being super-lenient but moderator 'Y' is being super-strict, that presents a problem in itself, -- a problem of consistency.

Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

Lacedaemonius:
Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

DoPo:

Lacedaemonius:
Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

There has been a couple of situations where I thought someone might be baiting others with no interest in debating, I just sent them a PM, works better since you can be a little more candid and you don't interrupt the thread, later that day the other person was banned for ban jumping.

NiPah:

DoPo:

Lacedaemonius:
Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

There has been a couple of situations where I thought someone might be baiting others with no interest in debating, I just sent them a PM, works better since you can be a little more candid and you don't interrupt the thread, later that day the other person was banned for ban jumping.

The problem there is that you have to know who the troll is targetting. That could be impossible beforehand or unfeasible if it's just a wide net they are casting

IceForce:
Hey, Kross, what are your thoughts regarding external archiving services being used on this site? (such as the one that was used to archive the old COC?)

Because I noticed sometimes it doesn't work, like it's being blocked or something, (perhaps due to an IP ban?)

No problem with long term archiving, but re-hosting content that's still getting traffic so our ads don't pay out is not something I will assist, as it's hard enough to get this place to pay for itself. Same thing as ad-block discussion rules. Ads are unfortunately the most reliable way to pay for content, so anything enabling/assisting in stripping them is rude at best.

When spammers, trolls, ad-stripping proxies, content-rehosting or vulnerability probing crawlers hit the site, I block their entire data center. Very little legitimate ad-viewing traffic routes through a data center, and I generally hear pretty quickly when something like a University peers through one and can't avoid the network allocation. I also white-list anyone who asks nicely about their proxy on a stable IP address.

Unfortunately retroactively reporting abusive traffic from such places is a waste of time, other then saving some companies' abuse handling staff some money/effort on closing currently abusive accounts. New accounts are created or exploited faster then old ones are removed.

TOR is allowed to view the site when not routing through a blocked data center - but not post - due to incredible amounts of spam and other abusive posting.

When we're finally able to turn on encryption (which is currently blocked by CDN costs and ad-network issues), I hope to be able to open things back up a bit more to allow people to connect from whatever is most convenient as part of a larger overhaul. It's unfortunately difficult to justify work time on purely the forums with all of our other current projects, so is nice when I can sneak in improvements as part of other maintenance.

Sites like archive.is like to use free/cheap proxies from all over the place (and are then caught in the firewall blocking various data centers), or are often used by popular aggregation sites to link to current content without giving us ad traffic. They seem to be using Google's cache currently. *shrug*

Kross:
Sites like archive.is like to use free/cheap proxies from all over the place (and are then caught in the firewall blocking various data centers), or are often used by popular aggregation sites to link to current content without giving us ad traffic. They seem to be using Google's cache currently. *shrug*

Yeah, whoever coded that site is a clever little bugger, because when a direct connection fails, rather than archive.is simply giving up altogether, the site instead attempts to fall back on google's cache.

Kross:
When we're finally able to turn on encryption (which is currently blocked by CDN costs and ad-network issues), I hope to be able to open things back up a bit more to allow people to connect from whatever is most convenient as part of a larger overhaul. It's unfortunately difficult to justify work time on purely the forums with all of our other current projects, so is nice when I can sneak in improvements as part of other maintenance.

Ah, I was actually going to suggest that as a possible way of clamping down on the banjump problem.

By forcing all site logins to go through https (instead of plain http) not only would this improve account security, but it would also foil probably 90% of banjump accounts. Because most free public proxies only forward unencrypted http data, and fail on the https encrypted stuff. Meaning, banjumpers using such proxies would not even be able to log in to the site.

Jux:
I dunno, I kinda like that they're cracking down on bigotry in general too.

Yeah, but do we really need two separate rules that cover the same thing? You've got "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" which covers discrimination, and then you have "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" which also covers discrimination, and also perverts.

Drathnoxis:

Jux:
I dunno, I kinda like that they're cracking down on bigotry in general too.

Yeah, but do we really need two separate rules that cover the same thing? You've got "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" which covers discrimination, and then you have "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" which also covers discrimination, and also perverts.

Possibly redundant, but it seems they're just trying to cover their bases. If it's just one or the other, you're gonna have people trying to rule lawyer their infractions, either 'I wasn't trolling, it's a sincerely held belief' or 'I didn't mean it, I was just trolling'. It feels like the separate rules are there to cover intent.

Jux:

Drathnoxis:

Jux:
I dunno, I kinda like that they're cracking down on bigotry in general too.

Yeah, but do we really need two separate rules that cover the same thing? You've got "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" which covers discrimination, and then you have "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" which also covers discrimination, and also perverts.

Possibly redundant, but it seems they're just trying to cover their bases. If it's just one or the other, you're gonna have people trying to rule lawyer their infractions, either 'I wasn't trolling, it's a sincerely held belief' or 'I didn't mean it, I was just trolling'. It feels like the separate rules are there to cover intent.

But you could still cover both bases, and more, with less redundant descriptions. For example if we take the description of trolling from the old CoC and use it here:

Inflammatory Comments / Trolling:

Posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

and also take theSovietConnection's revised description here:

theSovietConnection:

Discrimination and Perverted Remarks:

Discrimination will not be tolerated on these forums, particularly in regards to racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.

Perverse remarks will be subject to the PG-13 standard.

I think that covers the two infractions much more thoroughly than the current rules.

IceForce:

Nemmerle:
Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to stick an infraction against someone who accuses someone of trolling,

That's interesting to hear, and a marked change from the way this forum has traditionally been moderated in the past.

To illustrate what I mean, I'll use one of my own infractions as an example: (hell, I've got plenty to choose from!)

The warning has since been lifted, but as you can see, even the mere suggestion that someone might possibly be trolling in any certain particular instance was always met with an automatic infraction, regardless of context. And this example of mine was not unique; it happened like this to other people too. It was almost like the word was being automatically 'word filtered' by a modbot or something.

Anyway so, based on what you're saying, posts like mine linked above would no longer be hit with an "automatic infraction" like they used to under the old COC. That's good to know.

Just so long as all the mods are on the same page, of course. Because if moderator 'X' is being super-lenient but moderator 'Y' is being super-strict, that presents a problem in itself, -- a problem of consistency.

Personally I would think calling someone a troll because you disagree with them would be considered rude or possibly passive aggressive. Personally I would avoid it unless I had stronger evidence that they were a troll, for example the ban jumper or that group that tried using a cipher to mess with fellow forum members.

Edit: hopefully this doesn't sound like backseat modding just wanted to give my opinion on the calling out of trolls. I do agree we probably shouldn't be too quick to punish people if they legitimately think someone is trying to rile others up.

IceForce:

Nemmerle:
Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to stick an infraction against someone who accuses someone of trolling,

That's interesting to hear, and a marked change from the way this forum has traditionally been moderated in the past.

[...]

Anyway so, based on what you're saying, posts like mine linked above would no longer be hit with an "automatic infraction" like they used to under the old COC. That's good to know.

Just so long as all the mods are on the same page, of course. Because if moderator 'X' is being super-lenient but moderator 'Y' is being super-strict, that presents a problem in itself, -- a problem of consistency.

I don't want to give you any false assurances, which is why I said I could only speak for myself.

The situation you sketch is undeniably one of the potential challenges. You're gonna have something isomorphic to that problem with any set of rules. If there was a big set of rules then there'd always be the spectre of someone playing gotcha with the rulebook. It'd be so big that people would just have to default to acting as they thought best and it'd get pulled out for some rule-lawyering whenever there was a dispute. If there's a smaller more general set of rules, then the problem becomes with how you manage individual judgement in the context of a larger system.

Most likely there'll be some teething problems. We're trying to get some processes in place to help stabilise things a bit on that front. In the mean time, I can only really say how I interpret things and that n0e has, IME, been a fairly reasonable chap.

ScaredIndie:

Personally I would think calling someone a troll because you disagree with them would be considered rude or possibly passive aggressive. Personally I would avoid it unless I had stronger evidence that they were a troll, for example the ban jumper or that group that tried using a cipher to mess with fellow forum members.

Jabs like "Who are you trying to fool?" to me are just roundabout ways of accusing people of trolling or lying, and evoke the same sort of reaction as any other sort of similarly inflammatory comment. Hopefully that sort of thing will be discouraged from now on if I'm interpreting the new rules correctly, since it seemed like it was fair game previously.

Corey Schaff:

ScaredIndie:

Personally I would think calling someone a troll because you disagree with them would be considered rude or possibly passive aggressive. Personally I would avoid it unless I had stronger evidence that they were a troll, for example the ban jumper or that group that tried using a cipher to mess with fellow forum members.

Jabs like "Who are you trying to fool?" to me are just roundabout ways of accusing people of trolling or lying, and evoke the same sort of reaction as any other sort of similarly inflammatory comment. Hopefully that sort of thing will be discouraged from now on if I'm interpreting the new rules correctly, since it seemed like it was fair game previously.

That phrase and "troll" don't seem remotely similar to me. In what way do you think that dealing with someone being dishonest is equivalent necessarily to someone trolling? Obviously a troll is going to be dishonest, but that's hardly the most salient detail. How far do you want to get into restricting harmless speech because apparently this forum is dysfunctional? For those of us here out of necessity rather than choice, the prospect of dealing with all of this baggage that we didn't create is a little fucked. After all, most places I've seen manage this tl;dr mess with "Don't be a dick."

FileTrekker:

Houseman:

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Yes, please don't do that.

Take all your issues to the staff privately, you're exactly right that all this is doing is escalating a problem and not doing anything to improve it.

Personally i think its a matter of honor to tell someone when you blocked them. It allows them to know that you are no longer able to see their posts and explains why you do not interact with them anymore. I Wish anyone that blocked me would tell me about it, preferably with a reason why so i can improve. As i havent blocked anyone on the escapist so far luckily i havent had to report that to anyone yet.

Strazdas:

FileTrekker:

Houseman:

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Yes, please don't do that.

Take all your issues to the staff privately, you're exactly right that all this is doing is escalating a problem and not doing anything to improve it.

Personally i think its a matter of honor to tell someone when you blocked them. It allows them to know that you are no longer able to see their posts and explains why you do not interact with them anymore. I Wish anyone that blocked me would tell me about it, preferably with a reason why so i can improve. As i havent blocked anyone on the escapist so far luckily i havent had to report that to anyone yet.

That's fine, but if you feel the need to do that, please do it in a private message, not publicly in a thread.

Cheers!

FileTrekker:
That's fine, but if you feel the need to do that, please do it in a private message, not publicly in a thread.

Cheers!

Uhh, that's not gonna work, because the ignore function blocks PMs between ignored users.

IceForce:

FileTrekker:
That's fine, but if you feel the need to do that, please do it in a private message, not publicly in a thread.

Cheers!

Uhh, that's not gonna work, because the ignore function blocks PMs between ignored users.

Send the PM before you initiate the block?

Either way, keep personal matters out of public forums. A topic does not benefit from it at all. If someone has upset you enough you feel the need to block them, then just block them and move on from it, making it known you've blocked them, especially publically, is a bad idea and could run you foul of the COC, so, again, please don't do it.

The new rules look fine. I'm assuming that we can still have intellectual discussions about topics of race and sex as they scientifically differ from one another and the racism/sexism would be something along the lines of someone making an offhanded insult regarding sex or race.

Kind of makes the point redundant. Were people permitted to make racist/sexist comments before in an insulting way? Sounds more like a back-patting rule if this was already covered but that's what businesses do nowadays anyways.

Would someone making an earnest assertion that males are dumber than females in general be grounds for warning (still assuming that if they then decided to present data on the matter it would be even more deemed as a discussion piece rather than insult)?

DoPo:

Lacedaemonius:
Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

Yeah I recall getting a warning for using the word the word troll. Now I just say things like "Don't feed the thing we all know is going on, but can't use the word for in this context!" or "Don't feed things that live under bridges!" etc. So far, no issues with breaking CoC.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked