Discussion: Forum Rules Revision
By
Absinth_Incubus,
Posted on: 2008-07-21 13:00 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(snip)
And just as a general FYI excessive use of the notify moderator button can get you in trouble as well. Even if it's reporting valid infractions of the forum rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
It can get you in trouble?
Is that your expereince or suspion?
~
Unrelated: I'm assuming posts that [u]just[u] say 'can i have your stuff', 'cry moar' and the like going to counted as non constructive?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. If moderators start taking "cry moar plz your tears they are delicious" out of the market forum, I'm setting up alternative forums for the cool kids 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(snip)
And just as a general FYI excessive use of the notify moderator button can get you in trouble as well. Even if it's reporting valid infractions of the forum rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
It can get you in trouble?
Is that your expereince or suspion?
~
Unrelated: I'm assuming posts that [u]just[u] say 'can i have your stuff', 'cry moar' and the like going to counted as non constructive?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. If moderators start taking "cry moar plz your tears they are delicious" out of the market forum, I'm setting up alternative forums for the cool kids
[/ QUOTE ]
I wish they would take all of those types of posts and threads and just trash them. Some sections of these forums are overrun with that kind of pointless and meaningless trash.
If they would just get rid of the areas that promote that kind of behavior it would be even better.
On a brighter note, I'm very happy with moderation activity I have seen over the last few days. Good job.
I wish they would take that stuff out too. It so lowers the "class" of whole forums into just tacky. And it isn't constuctive in the least.
[ QUOTE ]
<QR>
Perfect example to the dicussion at hand-
[ QUOTE ]
I'm above taking crybabies stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
This post made by "someone" on 7-18-08. I notified a moderator to it's presence only to find out that a moderator has been notified already BUT the post still stands.
This of course will fall under the catch all rule about the "whim of a moderator"- but really it is just a post of someone calling another poster a crybaby and the post still stands.
A reason why one insulting post is allowed to stay but another is not is all most people are asking for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Post is still there. I can guess then it's okay to make generalized insulting statements as long as you don't single people out.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is stopping you from saying "Hey, great idea. I like it. I have nothing to really add other than to show you that you're not alone in what you want"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe its too long to type? /signed means the same while requiring less words .
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Fury, that's just plain lazy. If you type /signed you are typing 7 characters. If you type "I agree" you are typing 7 characters.
Which of these two would foster a little more conversation? Both are simplistic and terse, but /signed tells me nothing. In fact, I feel it degrades my idea that you or anyone else would just sign it like it were some common petition found on OnlinePetition.com.
Should I post a thread with an idea, I would love constructive feedback for my idea. I'd like people to agree and tell me why. I'd like people to disagree and also tell me why. Because if my idea is good, I'd like you to give your opinion and maybe sway others. If my idea is bad, I want to change it and make it better.
/signed does nothing to improve the dialog between you and me. It does nothing to foster conversation between my idea being good or my idea being bad. It just cheapens my post because you don't want to type a few extra words.
I also happen to agree somewhat with Arcanaville's post. The moderators want you to discuss. They want you to say WHY you agree so that maybe we can get some sort of idea as to why you like an idea. It could even sway their opinion to read "I like this because it seems to enhance the play value of the game!" It's something simple, but it shows them that you agree because of a reason -- not just that you agree.
[ QUOTE ]
That being said, if nudity or other NSFW things appear in blogs/DA accounts, some degree of onus rests on the parents of any children or teens playing and/or viewing these forums, either through monitoring the child's/teen's online habits, installing nanny software, or just flat out blocking those sites. The mods can't get everything, and believe it or not, nudity can be artistic and not merely porn.
[/ QUOTE ]
While you could be right about responsibility of watching a child, that's neither here nor there. Though the various legal acts have been repealed when it comes to pornography being viewed by children (COPA, CIPA, Decency Act), there are most likely countless other precedents in which websites were sued for having pornography that was viewed by a child.
Which, despite your objection, this game does have many children. The rating means nothing. It is advisory in nature, not legally binding. It does not guarantee that we only have 13 years old and older players. I have met parents who allow their 9 year old to play. That is their decision as a parent to allow a child to play the game. While they have agreed to the game, the child could mosey over to the forums on dad's account and be greeted by various imagery.
Furthermore, the line between pornography and art can be easily blurred. These are two concepts without intrinsic meaning like any other word. My concept of art is not your concept of art. I find modernist paintings absurd, some think it's the height of art.
So which would be the smarter response?
1) Allow pornography on the boards because of your meaning of art, then be sued for millions of dollars and have to go out of business OR raise fees?
2) Say no pornography and not be sued, but be accused of silencing your meaning of art?
Of course, there's more than these two choices. They could create special, age-restricted boards and such. However, it is still easier to say no and avoid lawsuits from overzealous parents -- possibly from many countries with very different pornography laws.
Though personally, I'd rather not come on to these forums and have a bunch of teenage kids sharing pictures in every forum. Not because I'm against pornography, but because it would easily pervade the forums and cut a swath through the actual, helpful threads. We have enough junk clogging the arteries of these boards, we don't need to add nudies.
[ QUOTE ]
It could even sway their opinion to read "I like this because it seems to enhance the play value of the game!" It's something simple, but it shows them that you agree because of a reason -- not just that you agree.
[/ QUOTE ]
I admit that I'm not up to speed on everything going on in these boards, but are there a bunch of people with the habit of posting "/signed" in random threads just for the fun of it? Because that notwithstanding, I can't think of why people would post "/signed" for something unless they agreed and thought it would improve their gameplay.
Posting a longer form of "I agree" simply forces people to read more words that say essentially the same thing. Posting "/signed", on the other hand, allows people to get an idea of how popular an idea is, while at the same time being able to quickly browse to posts that expand on that idea.
Now, I do agree that expanding on an idea is better than simply agreeing with it. But if we limit posts to only those that expand on ideas, then I fear posts will be weighted toward the negative side. People tend to have much more to say when they disagree with something than when they agree with it. When things are going wrong, people like to complain. But when things are going right, people don't have much to say.
[ QUOTE ]
So which would be the smarter response?
1) Allow pornography on the boards because of your meaning of art, then be sued for millions of dollars and have to go out of business OR raise fees?
2) Say no pornography and not be sued, but be accused of silencing your meaning of art?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he's talking about posting stuff on these boards. He's talking about content on external sites that are linked to from the boards. For example, what if I linked to a thread in another forum that had no explicit images, but if someone browsed to a different thread, there might be a link in there to something? How many degrees of separation must a link have from content not allowed on these boards before the link itself is not considered to be a violation of those rules?
At some point the parents need to pay attention to the browsing habits of their children because the mods on these boards can only regulate what is on these boards. One way of doing that might be to set up their computers so that their kids could only visit these boards and other safe sites, which is the kind of thing Dark_One was talking about.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he's talking about posting stuff on these boards. He's talking about content on external sites that are linked to from the boards. For example, what if I linked to a thread in another forum that had no explicit images, but if someone browsed to a different thread, there might be a link in there to something? How many degrees of separation must a link have from content not allowed on these boards before the link itself is not considered to be a violation of those rules?
At some point the parents need to pay attention to the browsing habits of their children because the mods on these boards can only regulate what is on these boards. One way of doing that might be to set up their computers so that their kids could only visit these boards and other safe sites, which is the kind of thing Dark_One was talking about.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.
There is a distinct difference between someone linking their blog/DA/whatever account, that happens to contain NSFW stuff, and someone directly linking the image in question.
Heck, linking DA itself could be construed a violation of the rules simply because there is NSFW there.
Just my 2 Inf here after reading only the original post and the dev response posts:
1: Unconstructive and counter-constructive are 2 different things. Please focus on the latter more than the former.
2: I understand that the mods do not need to justify their actions to the forumites. I also understand thet the mods are not arbitrary in their desisions. However, with modding decisions being sometimes subjective, the mods use a level of discretionary authority, therefor to avoid and misunderstandings within the community, between the mods and the forumites, any mod must be accompanied by an explanation to the modded poster. The explanation must be specific "Forum rules violation" is not an acceptable explanation even if the violation is very obvious. This ofcourse does not apply to posts lost in a threadnuke.
[ QUOTE ]
Because that notwithstanding, I can't think of why people would post "/signed" for something unless they agreed and thought it would improve their gameplay.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to be mean, but read the other posts for the reply to this point.
[ QUOTE ]
Posting a longer form of "I agree" simply forces people to read more words that say essentially the same thing. Posting "/signed", on the other hand, allows people to get an idea of how popular an idea is, while at the same time being able to quickly browse to posts that expand on that idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no. Not reading. Anything but READING!
Yes, that was my initial sarcastic reply. The human mind is able to function well beyond reading a few extra words. You will not become combustive from reading more words. The problem is that /signed does nothing at all for conversation and it does absolutely nothing to help the designers come up with the real issue to be solved.
It merely lets someone know how popular they are. I'm sorry to be rude, but this is not high school. You do not need to know how popular you are or how popular your idea is. If you stand behind the idea, the amount of agreement doesn't matter. I can certainly tell you that the popularity of an idea doesn't always matter to the developers. If it is a good idea to them, it will pass through into live -- regardless of how popular it is.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do agree that expanding on an idea is better than simply agreeing with it. But if we limit posts to only those that expand on ideas, then I fear posts will be weighted toward the negative side. People tend to have much more to say when they disagree with something than when they agree with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the problem. People disagree fluently, but they agree poorly. It is easy to agree with someone's post. Let me show you a very easy way:
I absolutely agree with your idea. I really do think that we need x. I was just telling a friend that the game seems like it lacks y, and I really think that your idea will bring it to the game. Great idea, and I hope to see it implemented!
Then again, as you said above...you have to READ now.
[ QUOTE ]
How many degrees of separation must a link have from content not allowed on these boards before the link itself is not considered to be a violation of those rules?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a silly, parsing question. You don't post pornography on this board. If you happen to post a link where an ad pops up with breasts, then you cannot do a thing about that. Therefore, I am more than sure that Koschej and others will understand about that. In fact, I'm more than sure they're not going to bandy about the internet clicking every single link until they find pornography. They're too busy dealing with the endless what-if scenarios that people throw at them.
Just use your common sense. Don't post pictures from pornographic materials. However, I'm more than sure you can link to a product on Amazon.com (say, this game). Amazon.com would have pornography for sell, but I'm more than sure that our moderation team isn't going to search it out JUST to take action against you.
Common sense. If you use it then I guarantee that you won't see much moderation action against you.
Another post out there calling someone stupid- I notified a mod and found out that someone else had already done so.....
Wonder if that post will still be there tonight?
Hmmmmmmmmmm...............
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
I'm all for it. I participate in more than one intrawebs forum. The other forums I frequent all have volunteer mods. The big difference I noticed previously was that the boards with the volunteer mods were run more strictly and with more noticeable mod activity. With the new mod crew and the revision on the rules maybe this won't be the case anymore.
** anecdote alert**
I've heard more than one person say in game that they don't participate in the forum because of the hostility of the 'forumites.' Usually there's an accompanying comment or two about how the forumites take things waaay to seriously and are prone to internet aggression.
**end anecdote alert**
Given the immense amount of info relevant to the game and the minuscule amount provided by the game, the forums are an essential part of CoX - lots of info and documentation simply cannot be found otherwise.
I'm all for it. Do what you can to make this place more civil. It may help ease the n00b in-game learning curve if people in-game are recommending the forums instead of telling folks to avoid them.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the enforcement of "Not Safe For Work" (ie: nudity) artwork in the art forums is too lax.
There have been, and are threads where the purpose is to figure out how to sneakily link to NSFW images somehow under the Mod's radar - often by merely stating "It'll get modded if I put a link - but if you go to the DeviantArt link in my sig and then check my Blog - you might find something naughty"
Its widely discussed there that its the accepted method to skirt the rules and still have character art porn.
The forums are supposed to be all ages for an all ages game - that sort of thing really doesn't belong here, on these boards.
Yet it still gets by the Mods.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some places I frequent they have a two link rule for nsfw content. Not only does the forum content have to have a nsfw warning, you also have to click 2 links to get to the nsfw content. This assures that people don't 'accidentally' come across nsfw content.
That's what Koschej has adopted as the NSFW Rule.
If he can click DIRECTLY to a page with NSFW content from your post, it gets the mod stick.
If you post a link to a page with an acceptable image, but the page it is on has NSFW content you have no control over? Modded.
If your sig leads to a page that at the time of the mod's viewing it has NSFW content? Modded, and you'll probably find your sig missing and a PM waiting in your box.
So... for those with DA galleries (such as mine), it is better to link to image pages rather than a gallery. Park galleries behind a warning page. Or use (or create) a worksafe site for image storage.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
Hi folks-- nice to see some thought put into this sort of thing, as rules really can make a big difference in quality of a *large* online community (and this certainly is one), and communities like this can really improve the quality of experience of the game itself (well, I think so anyway). Sorry I missed responding any sooner.
I do a lot of thinking about online community guidelines myself. The following are my sincere, well-intended criticisms of the rules you posted-- which I think have very serious flaws.
My remarks here should be in no way construed to suggest that I am unable or unwilling to comply with the rules as best I understand them. On the contrary I positively assert that: I make the greatest effort I reasonably can to conform to both the intent and the letter of the rules while contributing productively to the forums.
General Principles
You guys can't get enough moderators to make these forums a worthwhile experience by micro-managing the content of every post by every poster. For all that they could choose to write and enforce arbitrarily draconian rules, in the end, it is the voluntary compliance of posters with rules that makes the rules useful and the community valuable.
To that end, rules need to be fundamentally clear, fair and credible. The current rules are flawed to the point of losing a great deal of credibility (or if you prefer, relevance, or effectiveness). Because of the way they're written, they can't do much good. (Which is not to say the community is no good, but that good doesn't derive from the rules.)
Rules neeed to be clear and simple, using the simplest, most direct langauge available to describe what behavior is definitely NOT permitted, withOUT hedging or creating "grey" area. (Positive descriptions of preferred but not required behavior should be in a seperate statement of VISION.)
If a rule would have to define an offense vaguely, it would be better to allow that offense than to create a rule against it! (After all-- nobody will acknowledge the fairness or credibility of a rule that those enforcing it can't make clear.) The only value in a forum community is that actually created by the POSTERS-- so if you inhibit them, you inhibit the quality of the community. The only legitimate thing rules can do is encourage an environment where people can be confident they can productively post.
Re: Rule #2
This rule should be about (and ONLY about) disallowing personal attacks.
Instead, it's disastrously vague, and is in practice a way of justifying (not creating! moderators in fact can do anything they want) absolutely any moderator action, even very unreasonable ones. Appearing to be an effort to justify any moderator action damages the credibility of the whole ruleset, and thereby, damages the community.
Using highly subjective terms like "respect," "flaming," "trolling," and "inflammatory," and then turning aroud and redefining some of them, is a huge mistake. A rule that uses vague terms to describe what behavior is unacceptable, forces users to make a choice:
<ul type="square">[*]If users choose to take Rule #2 seriously, they will entertain serious doubts about darned near ANYTHING they might otherwise consider posting-- which will have a seriously chilling effect on their posting habits. The net effect of this stance would be to seriously damage the quality of forum posts generally, if it were widely adopted.[*]The (much more popular) alternative is, to a greater or lesser degree (and it's usually greater) regard the rules themselves as nonsensical and superfluous-- to IGNORE the rules, and simply do whatever they personally think is right or wrong.[/list]
Thanks to ambiguity, rule #2 really does little except intimidate honest posters out of posting (bad-faith posters will post anyway, leading to an ever-accellerating bad-poster treadmill). I can't imagine that's what was intended.
Rule #2 seems to understand that what it should proscribe is PERSONAL ATTACKS. It beats around the bush to that effect. But it ambiguously includes all sorts of other stuff:
[ QUOTE ]
Personal attacks include, but are not limited to insulting a poster directly: . . . [emphasis mine]
[/ QUOTE ]
But that's untrue. Personal attacks are, in fact, limited to negatively characterizing the poster directly, which is what the entirety of Rule #2 should consist of. It should not be trying to outlaw every concievable way of being brusque, terse, conceited, etc ad nauseam. Posters and the community will regulate themselves and each other on the little things, especially if you correct, and ONLY correct, the big things-- personal attacks (and the other things mentioned in most of the rules.)
The reason people often reinvent personal attack into "anything that could ever offened anyone" is that they want to enforce harmony and niceness. In doing so, they confuse the GOAL with the RULE! Harmony and niceness comes from people, not rules.
I can scarcely put into words how belligerent, ignorant, unenlightened, foolish, sociopathic..... finally, how obnoxious and divisive, it is to try and enforce harmony and niceness directly with rules.
Saying: "Essentially, we outlaw anything that might offend anyone, but for example..." is saying nothing. Say something specific about the real bounds of what's permissible, or don't say anything. That something should be:
Rule #2: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: Negatively characterizing a specific forum poster him- or herself, is not permitted. Criticism of ideas and actions is permitted (but must be on topic, see rule #8)
Re: Rule #4
Rule #4 is a fine rule insofar as all rules are clear enough to be readily understood and complied with (#2 is not), and if Moderators had clear responsibilities to explain actions with reference to clear rules and reverse decisions outside their scope (it doesn't).
However, in enacts a policy which is ill-considered. Actions against posters should be public and explicit. Moderator actions on the forums are NOT in fact a matter between moderators and individuals-- they are inherently the concern of the entire community, which needs to see that its rules are being enforced-- and enforced consistently and fairly.
The policy should be reconsidered, but insofar as it continues to be the policy, rule #4 does not have faults in this regard. The only fault Rule #4 has is that it should outline moderator responsibilities to be governed by the rules. If moderators aren't, then none of the rules have ANY credibility.
Re: Rule #5:
The bullet point about "pyramid" quoting is unreasonable. Sometimes it is a very useful technique in a multi-page thread to quote back, for context, a sequence of responses that goes beyond four posts.
[ QUOTE ]
Posts that are insulting and rude may be deleted, no matter how valid the ideas behind them may be.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply a way of reiterating that actions may be taken against certain posts on an entirely subjective standard, and has nothing to do with lack of content. Unecessary to repeat here, and should be eliminated in principle as well.
[ QUOTE ]
No thread necromancy. Necro-posting is responding to an old discussion thread and is a form of thread bumping. If you wish to discuss an considerably older topic, create a new post and link to the older discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a recommendation to spam the forums with multiple threads on the same topic, and makes zero sense. It also has nothing to do with lack of content. Responding to older threads with legitimate ideas is completely legitimate. If there were any problem with it whatsoever, aside from a completely irrational superstition based on the word "necromancy," somebody would be able to explain it. Nobody will.
Re: Rule #8
This rule should be Rule #3, if rules are ranked by importance. Not posting off-topic is a central guideline for any discussion-based community, and deserves high emphasis.
Also, the business about "religious slurs" should be withdrawn from rule #2 (religion views are only ideas, and deserve no special priviledges or immunity from criticism). Instead, if some discussion of religon is to be banned, all discussion of religion should be banned-- because it's off-topic. NOT because it's "disrespectful" etc etc. (Thanks to the nature of religious institutions, people will often insist that positive remarks about one religion are disrespectful of another, 'because' one is right and the other is wrong.)
Re: Rule #17
This rule should be omitted. (In fact, you should have a rule saying exactly the opposite.) It is a way of saying "Moderators will not follow the rules." Even if this is true, you need not SAY so, and saying so only withdraws credibility from the rules.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
That's what Koschej has adopted as the NSFW Rule.
If he can click DIRECTLY to a page with NSFW content from your post, it gets the mod stick.
If you post a link to a page with an acceptable image, but the page it is on has NSFW content you have no control over? Modded.
If your sig leads to a page that at the time of the mod's viewing it has NSFW content? Modded, and you'll probably find your sig missing and a PM waiting in your box.
So... for those with DA galleries (such as mine), it is better to link to image pages rather than a gallery. Park galleries behind a warning page. Or use (or create) a worksafe site for image storage.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's just plain ridiculous.
From what I have read/already knew noone will be here anymore LOL.
[ QUOTE ]
The forums are supposed to be all ages for an all ages game - that sort of thing really doesn't belong here, on these boards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Point of fact...
Co* is not an "all ages game". It clearly states that it is a T-rated game, with the justifiers of "Violence" and "Suggestive Themes", down at the bottom of these very forums.
That being said, if nudity or other NSFW things appear in blogs/DA accounts, some degree of onus rests on the parents of any children or teens playing and/or viewing these forums, either through monitoring the child's/teen's online habits, installing nanny software, or just flat out blocking those sites. The mods can't get everything, and believe it or not, nudity can be artistic and not merely porn.