The mods started these boards, and I bet the boards will be paid for first out of their pockets, whatever other means of support they find. Their house, their rules.
That said, I'll bet they will consider (if not agree with) some input on the Code of Conduct.
Just a few thoughts:
1. I approve of the no nudie pictures policy. Many people like to surf from work. They don't want to get into trouble. At the very least, there should be a policy of no nudity without a NSFW heading on the thread. (In fact, I'm no prude, but there's a fairly wide range of cheesecake shots that I think merit a NSFW heading on the thread).
2. This may be controversial, but I think it would be worthwhile to make announcements (in this forum, I guess) of suspensions and bannings. Part of a system of rules is deterrence, and when rules are necessarily and inherently subject to different interpretations, it helps to see how those in authority will apply them. Even if mods are not comfortable "calling out" people by announcing here that they have been banned/suspended/reprimanded, I suggest a sticky thread (open to mods only) that quotes posts that resulted in punishment. Those posts could be edited to redact identifying names, but the text would be there for people to see what kind of conduct is not acceptable. I recognize that there is a danger of a looking-at-the-car-wreck fascination with this, but I think it would help people see what is acceptable and what is not.
3. I demand that any person who argues that his "right to free speech" is being violated by application of forum rules have the First Amendment branded on his ass.
Comments Regarding Code of Conduct
-
Mr. Fed
- Posts: 15111
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
-
ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 14981
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
I fully agree with NSFWs, and we're talking about ways to encourage their use more strongly - not just through a new CoC, but even the possibility of mandating that they be used and/or not allowing the "random" cheescake pics that sometimes pop up in a thread unless the original poster adds a NSFW to it. That last one is probably hard to enforce, though, so we'll probalby just try to encourage it, and rely on the good nature of the posters.
The second is a tough one. Deterrence is important, and people need to know that actions have consequences. That said, when we banned a certain game developer at GG, we didn't want to post publicly about it, because we didn't want to encourage the type of behavior shown by some posters - namely, specific attempts to get that person to blow up and get himself banned. That's why we kind of played it by ear in the past with how bannings were announced (if they were announced at all).
Posting specific quotes is an idea I like even less than announcing all bannings. First, there are some things that cause bannings that we probably don't want to repeat, much less in an official thread. Second, it fails to capture those whose bannings are of a cumulative nature. The final straw that breaks the camel's back may not seem particularly banworthy, but given a poster's history, we may feel it's justified overall.
As for the third one, ass tattooing is a nice idea, but I think it would be more effective to tattoo it all backwards-like on the person's forehead so that they could read it in the mirror.
The second is a tough one. Deterrence is important, and people need to know that actions have consequences. That said, when we banned a certain game developer at GG, we didn't want to post publicly about it, because we didn't want to encourage the type of behavior shown by some posters - namely, specific attempts to get that person to blow up and get himself banned. That's why we kind of played it by ear in the past with how bannings were announced (if they were announced at all).
Posting specific quotes is an idea I like even less than announcing all bannings. First, there are some things that cause bannings that we probably don't want to repeat, much less in an official thread. Second, it fails to capture those whose bannings are of a cumulative nature. The final straw that breaks the camel's back may not seem particularly banworthy, but given a poster's history, we may feel it's justified overall.
As for the third one, ass tattooing is a nice idea, but I think it would be more effective to tattoo it all backwards-like on the person's forehead so that they could read it in the mirror.
-
Peacedog
- Posts: 13148
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:11 pm
- Location: Despair, level 5
- Contact:
We were actually working to overhaul the CoC back at GG. We'd gotten to an area we felt comfortable with, but since we're thinking we're going to revisit some policies it needs work again. And I think we'll display it for critique at some point. All that said. . .
One thing to remember is that with something like that, the impact you guys can have (I hate to speak of us separately like this, but here I go) can be tremendous. Getting upset with someone who screws up won't do you any good. A kind but firm "that's not how we do things here" can be great. I doubt NSFW errors will be a huge problem to start (maybe for a short period of pic policy changes), but they may start to be as new people come in (remember, no matter how well written the CoC, only 20% of the incoming people ever bother to glance at it before posting). If all of you are working hard to get NSFW errors in proper places, and avoid "drive by" picture postings when they're inappropriate, it makes it much easier to teach then n00bs.
Now, I said we may go laxer on what's allowed (and note: that does not necessarily translate into postable pics), but it isn't set in stone (and please don't get upset and run off before arguing for a side at least). If we do, it will be especially beneficial if we can have everyone discourag certain kinds of behavior (drive bys, for example. Poor Ms Cuthbert was badly abused in this regard).
I'm not even remotely prudish, but I also understand there are pictures that are acceptable, but you don't want your boss to see them on your monitor necessarily. And I think NSFW is a good thing. Though I think for some it has come to mean "potentially inappropriate material - for work, family, friends" not just "Not Safe For Work". I think NSFW is catchy, but that's something else to think about.
Grifman, we're aiming for the same feel. We might be tightening a bit in some areas, relaxing in others (nocd cracks, to use an example).
On point two: to continue with what Ken said, we did announce a few bannins of a certain Game Developer's groupies, because it was a type of behavior that was pretty unique, and we needed to get the message out. Food for thought. Though Ken raises other good points. It generaly takes some cumulative effort combined with some pretty harsh stuff to get booted (temporary or permanent). Maybe we can find a way to give people less leeway to a degree, but not need to act officially as much? Is there some sort of spell that does that?
Point three: I'm on board.
Ken's right, though I should say the policy might be repealed to a degree. If it is, we most certainly will be more aggresive with NSFWs.1. I approve of the no nudie pictures policy. Many people like to surf from work. They don't want to get into trouble. At the very least, there should be a policy of no nudity without a NSFW heading on the thread. (In fact, I'm no prude, but there's a fairly wide range of cheesecake shots that I think merit a NSFW heading on the thread).
One thing to remember is that with something like that, the impact you guys can have (I hate to speak of us separately like this, but here I go) can be tremendous. Getting upset with someone who screws up won't do you any good. A kind but firm "that's not how we do things here" can be great. I doubt NSFW errors will be a huge problem to start (maybe for a short period of pic policy changes), but they may start to be as new people come in (remember, no matter how well written the CoC, only 20% of the incoming people ever bother to glance at it before posting). If all of you are working hard to get NSFW errors in proper places, and avoid "drive by" picture postings when they're inappropriate, it makes it much easier to teach then n00bs.
Now, I said we may go laxer on what's allowed (and note: that does not necessarily translate into postable pics), but it isn't set in stone (and please don't get upset and run off before arguing for a side at least). If we do, it will be especially beneficial if we can have everyone discourag certain kinds of behavior (drive bys, for example. Poor Ms Cuthbert was badly abused in this regard).
I'm not even remotely prudish, but I also understand there are pictures that are acceptable, but you don't want your boss to see them on your monitor necessarily. And I think NSFW is a good thing. Though I think for some it has come to mean "potentially inappropriate material - for work, family, friends" not just "Not Safe For Work". I think NSFW is catchy, but that's something else to think about.
Grifman, we're aiming for the same feel. We might be tightening a bit in some areas, relaxing in others (nocd cracks, to use an example).
On point two: to continue with what Ken said, we did announce a few bannins of a certain Game Developer's groupies, because it was a type of behavior that was pretty unique, and we needed to get the message out. Food for thought. Though Ken raises other good points. It generaly takes some cumulative effort combined with some pretty harsh stuff to get booted (temporary or permanent). Maybe we can find a way to give people less leeway to a degree, but not need to act officially as much? Is there some sort of spell that does that?
Point three: I'm on board.
-
Odin
- Posts: 20732
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
- Location: Syracuse, NY
I don't mind a nice boob-shot once in a while, as long as it's clearly marked NSFW in the thread title. For that matter, I don't mind full-body either, but I can see why people would and I don't need to come here to find it.
I actually thought it felt more "professional" when somebody objectionable just disappeared for a while (or forever). Everybody figured out what had happened to them and got the message, but it didn't need to be trumpeted to the heavens. Even moreso, I think repeating something that got somebody banned in the first place just draws even more attention to it. I wouldn't favor that approach.
As for #3, I've always been partial to a good ol'fashioned horse-whipping, but that's me.
Sith
I actually thought it felt more "professional" when somebody objectionable just disappeared for a while (or forever). Everybody figured out what had happened to them and got the message, but it didn't need to be trumpeted to the heavens. Even moreso, I think repeating something that got somebody banned in the first place just draws even more attention to it. I wouldn't favor that approach.
As for #3, I've always been partial to a good ol'fashioned horse-whipping, but that's me.
Sith
-
Napoleon
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:07 am
- Location: The Low Countries
- Contact:
I agree with Mr. Fed on everything, ESPECIALLY on the making bannings public.
Moderation needs to be transparent for the people who are being moderated, IMHO.
Moderation needs to be transparent for the people who are being moderated, IMHO.
Where Cows Congregate - The Bovine Conspiracy
-
Lorini
- Posts: 8282
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:52 am
- Location: Santa Clarita, California
Being that the nudes will almost certainly be all women and no men, I vote against nudes, but I think I'm outnumbered here 
I had no idea what NSFW meant until Peacedog finally explained it. Not everyone knows these acronyms, and I could be literally fired for showing a nude pic on a work monitor (I work as a government contractor). I think it's too dangerous, and there's lots of places on the net to see nudes, but again I'm sure I'm in the minority again.
Lorini
I had no idea what NSFW meant until Peacedog finally explained it. Not everyone knows these acronyms, and I could be literally fired for showing a nude pic on a work monitor (I work as a government contractor). I think it's too dangerous, and there's lots of places on the net to see nudes, but again I'm sure I'm in the minority again.
Lorini
Black Lives Matter
-
RunningMn9
- Posts: 24466
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
specific attempts to get that person to blow up and get himself banned.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
-
LordMortis
- Posts: 70220
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
-
Asharak
- Posts: 7907
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:11 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Trying to get this thread back on topic (and save it from God; how ironic), I'd like to throw my exchange-rate-reduced two cents behind the idea of public, transparent moderation.
ILB said posting bannings wouldn't necessarily convey the reason for the banning, especially ones for cumulative offences. I disagree. Whether or not quotes were used, a single sentence from the Powers That Be for each banning would be quite sufficient. For example, "Poster X was banned for a single, egregious violation of the no-nudity rule", or "Poster Y was banned for 6 months for repeated infractions of the respectful-tone rule after repeated warnings within the forum and two private e-mails".
One sentence in either case, and the reason for and methodology behind both bannings is abundantly clear.
The bottom line to me is this: until the CoC becomes an explicit, 100% implication- and connotation-free document (i.e., "the following list of words is not allowed on the forums...", versus more broadly stating "deliberately disrespectful language is not allowed"), the enforcement of it needs to be transparent. In other words, unless the document itself can be said to be perfectly transparent, unarguable, and not open to any interpretation whatsoever, then the prevailing and enforced interpretation needs to be made public.
I think my biggest (and it was still relatively small) beef with the moderation of GG was the tendency of the Mods to admit that each one of them had different interpretations of the rules and how and when to enforce them. While I understand that this is inevitable to some extent, it should be actively minimized. After all, if "we the people" are to be expected to conform to a single standard, then so should those enforcing it. By analogy, the police don't have four different definitions of break and enter that might be applied depending on which squad car arrives on the scene.
Publication of bannings/warnings/etc. would help reduce those sorts of incidents, in my view: it would encourage the Mods to talk to each other about each decision, with a consensus eventually evolving (hopefully).
Anyway, this two cents is getting rather long, I have to get to work. Hope some of that made sense somewhere.
- Ash
ILB said posting bannings wouldn't necessarily convey the reason for the banning, especially ones for cumulative offences. I disagree. Whether or not quotes were used, a single sentence from the Powers That Be for each banning would be quite sufficient. For example, "Poster X was banned for a single, egregious violation of the no-nudity rule", or "Poster Y was banned for 6 months for repeated infractions of the respectful-tone rule after repeated warnings within the forum and two private e-mails".
One sentence in either case, and the reason for and methodology behind both bannings is abundantly clear.
The bottom line to me is this: until the CoC becomes an explicit, 100% implication- and connotation-free document (i.e., "the following list of words is not allowed on the forums...", versus more broadly stating "deliberately disrespectful language is not allowed"), the enforcement of it needs to be transparent. In other words, unless the document itself can be said to be perfectly transparent, unarguable, and not open to any interpretation whatsoever, then the prevailing and enforced interpretation needs to be made public.
I think my biggest (and it was still relatively small) beef with the moderation of GG was the tendency of the Mods to admit that each one of them had different interpretations of the rules and how and when to enforce them. While I understand that this is inevitable to some extent, it should be actively minimized. After all, if "we the people" are to be expected to conform to a single standard, then so should those enforcing it. By analogy, the police don't have four different definitions of break and enter that might be applied depending on which squad car arrives on the scene.
Publication of bannings/warnings/etc. would help reduce those sorts of incidents, in my view: it would encourage the Mods to talk to each other about each decision, with a consensus eventually evolving (hopefully).
Anyway, this two cents is getting rather long, I have to get to work. Hope some of that made sense somewhere.
- Ash
-
St. Mark
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:55 pm
I totally agree with this.Asharak wrote:In other words, unless the document itself can be said to be perfectly transparent, unarguable, and not open to any interpretation whatsoever, then the prevailing and enforced interpretation needs to be made public.
A CoC that is "clearly ambiguous" can be easily exploited and then when the time comes to ban someone, there is always argument as to why. For example, if you had a rule against threadjacking that just read "try to stay on-topic," you couldn't just outright ban the christian bashers that posted here earlier.
This I disagree with.Asharak wrote:I think my biggest (and it was still relatively small) beef with the moderation of GG was the tendency of the Mods to admit that each one of them had different interpretations of the rules and how and when to enforce them.
I think having a relatively "common-sense" CoC and at the same time allow Mods to enforce on subjective whim adds "noir and mystique" to a forum.
-
Lassr
- Posts: 16873
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:51 am
- Location: Rocket City (AL)
- Contact:
-
setaside
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:17 pm
- Location: Kansas City, MO
-
ChrisGrenard
- Posts: 10587
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:19 pm
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27992
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
But just to be safe, you should probably clearly spell out a list of things you thought were "aribitrary" so that we can be sure to revisit those things. Can't hurt nuthin'.ChrisGrenard wrote:I honestly feel that since we are independant now, we are going to see a lot of good changes to the CoC. Things that seemed arbituary before will probably be fixed and whatnot. This is most excellent for the entire forum, I think.
~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
-
Eel Snave
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
- Contact:
The spelling is "arbitrary." Geez! 
Sometimes, hate speech or anger would be allowed, almost. It's like, in one thread, people would be getting mean with each other or on certain topics (i.e. Christian-bashing or politics) and no one would lift a finger. However, in another thread that has a different tone, warnings would get thrown around for much milder offenses. I noticed that a bit. It never bothered me terribly, but it's kind of an example of the arbitrariness that my esteemed colleague Mr. Grenard is referring to.
I refer to everyone now as my "esteemed colleague." It's fun.
Sometimes, hate speech or anger would be allowed, almost. It's like, in one thread, people would be getting mean with each other or on certain topics (i.e. Christian-bashing or politics) and no one would lift a finger. However, in another thread that has a different tone, warnings would get thrown around for much milder offenses. I noticed that a bit. It never bothered me terribly, but it's kind of an example of the arbitrariness that my esteemed colleague Mr. Grenard is referring to.
I refer to everyone now as my "esteemed colleague." It's fun.
Downwards Compatible
We're playing every NES game alphabetically! Even the crappy ones! Send help!
We're playing every NES game alphabetically! Even the crappy ones! Send help!
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27992
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
Most of my spelling mistakes are of the honest-to-goodness Neal-doesn't-know-any-better variety. That one was actually a mere typo. Small victories...
Thanks for the point-out on that sort of thing, Lee.
~Neal
Thanks for the point-out on that sort of thing, Lee.
~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
-
Mandeville
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:11 pm
- Location: Ellington, CT
This is like starting a new country.
I think the the CoC should be well spelled out and posted in a place that we all can find.
I also believe that the CoC should have more flexability and not restrict the TYPE of speech presented on this board, but rather the TONE. It is very easy to say that respect is the watchword.
Maybe we could have a commity that would review real trouble spots. It would also be romoved from the mods so that there is no claim of a fixed race. It would be like the General Assembly to the Security Council.
I think the the CoC should be well spelled out and posted in a place that we all can find.
I also believe that the CoC should have more flexability and not restrict the TYPE of speech presented on this board, but rather the TONE. It is very easy to say that respect is the watchword.
Maybe we could have a commity that would review real trouble spots. It would also be romoved from the mods so that there is no claim of a fixed race. It would be like the General Assembly to the Security Council.
-
CeeKay
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:13 am
I say we add in:
Each mod gets 2 goats and a virgin once a year.
The head mod gets a temple constructed in his/her name.
Polka dot speedos we all must wear while surfing the forums w/ web cams to back this up (monitored by ImLawBoy of course).
Oh, you mean serious suggestions.... well
nonudiepicsinthreadsnotlabledNSFWpublicnotice ofbanningspeelcheckerwouldbenicenosecuritycouncilliketheUNwhichisuselessanywaysGrenardisasuckupandnoautoerotica
<gasp>
that is all.
Each mod gets 2 goats and a virgin once a year.
The head mod gets a temple constructed in his/her name.
Polka dot speedos we all must wear while surfing the forums w/ web cams to back this up (monitored by ImLawBoy of course).
Oh, you mean serious suggestions.... well
nonudiepicsinthreadsnotlabledNSFWpublicnotice ofbanningspeelcheckerwouldbenicenosecuritycouncilliketheUNwhichisuselessanywaysGrenardisasuckupandnoautoerotica
<gasp>
that is all.
CeeKay has left the building. See him exclusively at Gaming Trend!
-
Eel Snave
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
- Contact:
I hope that didn't sound asshole-y. It's just that EVERYONE was misspelling it! Gah! If it was asshole-y, here's an asshole: 
Downwards Compatible
We're playing every NES game alphabetically! Even the crappy ones! Send help!
We're playing every NES game alphabetically! Even the crappy ones! Send help!
-
Asharak
- Posts: 7907
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:11 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
-
Bad Demographic
- Posts: 7774
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:21 am
- Location: Las Cruces, NM