Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
LennyLen

The new 'Disallowed topics' rule

This topic is 907 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

For instance, a guideline could follow this syntax: "As opposed to verbally abusing another poster, address his or her point of view and provide your own in a friendly, nonabrasive manner". That is absolutely acceptable and doable, I believe.

 

The staff should revise this to the following: "be respectful of one another when discussing topics relating to XYZ". Let's attack the problem at its source and provide a more explicit outline of conduct. 

 

But that's already been the 'posting guidelines' since forever.

  • Insults and personal attacks on other members will not be tolerated.
  • Offensive language is allowed but should be avoided and never directed in the form of an attack towards another member. 
  • Do not start a topic that condones illegal activities or activities that tend to incite flame wars, such as: drug use, killing, warez, theft, race, nationality, sex, and religion.
  • People engaging in abusive activities will have their accounts rendered inaccessible and be permanently banned from GameDev.net. Furthermore, if necessary, we will take whatever steps are needed to report you to your ISP for abuse, and won't hesitate to contact law enforcement authorities should the nature of the abuse warrant it.

 

Sure, your text could be appended to the back of "Insults and personal attacks on other members will not be tolerated.", but that's really already covered by the rules, so I don't see how it'd actually help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Seems to me that the topics in question have had appropriate levels of discussion for the time being. I don't mind an effort to change the topic for awhile to give everyone a break.

Overall, I find the controversial threads enlightening, particularly (as mentioned) the beginning when it starts out as intelligent conversation. Though I don't need to see them all the time, they're one of my favorite things to find in the lounge. Generally I find that after a few pages in the number of voices and conversations between individuals gets to be more than I care to try to follow and that's around the time that the thread tends to devolve into flame wars, off topic, non-constructive conversation, or people just trying to have the last word. So that has me wondering if one potential solution might be to pose a time or post count limit on topics that are more controversial in nature, either at the beginning or at some later point at the discretion of a moderator. The idea being that it doesn't matter whether a moderator is more sided with a particular view, the lifespan of the thread has already been decided upon. I suppose though there's always the potential for abuse before the thread is locked.

 

I also wanted to add that I'd rather see discussions like these take place in the lounge where there's no ability to affect reputation. While some topics might be appropriate as a business or design discussion, people becoming offended at the hit to their reputation is only going to devolve an intelligent conversation quicker.

Edited by kseh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An easier solution, I suppose, would be to re-enable ratings in the Lounge.

 

I can't remember why we disabled them (presumably to prevent down-vote fests in opinion-based topics), but it would very quickly iron out which side of the debate the community falls on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An easier solution, I suppose, would be to re-enable ratings in the Lounge.

 

I can't remember why we disabled them (presumably to prevent down-vote fests in opinion-based topics), but it would very quickly iron out which side of the debate the community falls on...

 

 

:D Or it could go the other way, just stating something funny/popular will immediately get upvoted.

 

I think it's best to keep ratings off the Lounge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First considered 2 things , then a suggested solution 

 

1. One person who was the main cause of aggressive behavior, personal attacks and flaming in general on such topics is banned (Graelig), in other words the tendency to drift in to disorderliness during such topics should have dropped drastically.

 

2. On the flip side you can't get around the minimal token of disorderliness by banning such topics you mentioned - as people have displayed over the top ranting and have unnecessarily raised tension  in replies on topic as innocent as "windows 10". In other words the adrenaline rush would always take its toll when it has to

 

A number of very good reasons why temporarily banning such topics might be a bad idea has been mentioned previously (including that-  discussing such topics help those on the receiving end of industry bias, discrimination ..... and those on the "dishing out" side gain a self awareness and realisation of their actions, as it is well known that people's bias actions could be subconscious ) 

 

One solution which I would suggest instead of any temporary ban is 

1. to take excessive pressure off the mods:- when mods get to the stage of making sensitive decisions and you are at a point where the subjective bias of mods might be an issue. You could do it the way its done in the society- Have a jury system and make a quick "jury call" (of course this means you randomly select members, perhaps up to 15 - to eliminate bias- to vote on a particular member behavior). And of course the mods are still the equivalent of the judge. This would be a swift process and not a time consuming process as it is in the real world. This will effectively take excessive pressures off the mods

 

2. If such "jury vote" goes against the member then the mods could either warn, warn + points deductions or suspension

Points deductions should be massive and so should be an incentive to members to behave.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've taken a rather extreme stance on this so that we can back away from it to something more reasonable.

 

This is a very temporary measure, and one that we have used effectively in the past, and we'd just ask you to be patient with us a little longer.  We're not trying to stifle productive discussion of these topics, and we don't want to oppress those who have been affected by these issues or support those who cause them.  We will be allowing these discussions -- albeit initially in a more controlled way, and relaxing from there till we find a good balance -- within the next week or two, and we don't think a short break from those discussions will cause any harm or support the wrong people.

 

 

All of the above comments and suggestions are being taken on board, as well as those I have received privately, and even though I might be a little slow to respond all of the feedback in very welcome and I would encourage you to continue.

 

In the meantime, please be patient with us for just a bit longer, and enjoy all of the other discussions that are still allowed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a first step, we've adjusted the settings for the warning system so that our moderators might be more comfortable issuing warnings.

 

 

Any members receiving a warning please remember that it is just that: a warning, and not a punishment.  An opportunity to to on board the feedback from our moderators and adjust your future behaviour if necessary.

 

 

 

For anyone wondering, our warning system allows us to apply "warning points" to a user for a number of infringements.  Different infringements carry a different number of points, varying from 1 up to 6, and points expire after different periods of time ranging from 2 days to 30 days.  For almost all warning types moderators are given the option of adjusting the settings for number of points as well as expiry period before submitting a warning.

 

If a user has more than 9 warning points simultaneously active they will automatically be suspended for a day, escalating from there to a permanent ban if they have more than 12 points simultaneously active.  These numbers have been raised significantly from the previous settings (starting from 4 simultaneous points) so that moderators will be more comfortable issuing warnings without the risk that any automated punishment kicks in.

 

Moderators can of course elect to suspend a member who has not yet reached those totals, should their behaviour warrant it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not going to read everything here, but I dont like the new rules. Let ppl argue..Good stuff always come out of hot discussions. Let ppl talk about anything they want. A discussion getting hot is just natural, happens in real life too, why be so fanatic/sensitive about it?

 

I enjoyed the gamergate ones..you know, seeing ppls point of view is always a great insight, even if theyre flaming someone.

Edited by Icebone1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 907 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!