community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Note that he says PG will be strictly followed and we should be fine if we follow that. Below is what the PG guidelines are. I've bolded some parts that I thought were interesting.
PG:"Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children."
Maybe he meant PG-13?
Heh. PG-13 allows a lot more, so I doubt it ;)
Maybe he meant PG-13?
Heh. PG-13 allows a lot more, so I doubt it ;)
Oh!
Then I have it backwards.
Maybe he meant rated G, and the P before it means "Probably moderated"?
Stop right there. The PG thing was just a familiar reference for some - the code of conduct still applies. The message you linked to wasn't posted so you or others could find a line to walk right up to and possibly not cross. It was posted to give some more information that we thought would be helpful. Profanity, nudity and "violence" (in this case I suppose that would be considered harrasment/verbal attacks on other posters) is all still against the code of conduct. If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so.
I would have thought that if you said just think generally about PG-13. It was the word "strict" that sent me to look at what PG actually entailed. One of the major issues we have had is not knowing where the lines were drawn and getting modded and even banned for crossing a line that we had absolutely no way of seeing. When you said "strictly PG", I looked to see where the lines were drawn so that I would NOT step over them.
Stop right there. The PG thing was just a familiar reference for some - the code of conduct still applies. The message you linked to wasn't posted so you or others could find a line to walk right up to and possibly not cross. It was posted to give some more information that we thought would be helpful. Profanity, nudity and "violence" (in this case I suppose that would be considered harrasment/verbal attacks on other posters) is all still against the code of conduct. If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so.
Maybe you should have been more clear on the parts of PG you were alluding to, and the parts you were omitting.
And nobody is looking for a border to cross, just a border at all.
Lighten up, peeps, and let's have a little perspective, shall we?
And nobody is looking for a border to cross, just a border at all.
You don't seriously believe that do you, RH? There are PLENTY of people here that kick that line on a regular basis and intentionally.
Stop right there. The PG thing was just a familiar reference for some - the code of conduct still applies. The message you linked to wasn't posted so you or others could find a line to walk right up to and possibly not cross. It was posted to give some more information that we thought would be helpful. Profanity, nudity and "violence" (in this case I suppose that would be considered harrasment/verbal attacks on other posters) is all still against the code of conduct. If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so.
Maybe you should have been more clear on the parts of PG you were alluding to, and the parts you were omitting.
And nobody is looking for a border to cross, just a border at all.
EDIT: And about the part where you say "If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so." That looks a lot like baiting to me, as it is apparent that the poster is not "that kind of person", but was rather looking for a line so as to NOT cross it.
I think that if WotC and the ORCs took everything that everyone said literally and by the letter of the CoC, there would be a lot more suspensions than there are. Maybe they should start treating us the same as we treat them.
Lighten up, peeps, and let's have a little perspective, shall we?
My major issue is that HUGE portions of the CoC are so vague, there is no way to know where the line is. That allows the ORCs a huge amount of varriance in what they mod/ban us for and what they don't. I want to know where the lines are so that I don't cross them, or if I do, that I intentionally crossed them and actually deserved to be modded/banned.
Stop right there. The PG thing was just a familiar reference for some - the code of conduct still applies. The message you linked to wasn't posted so you or others could find a line to walk right up to and possibly not cross. It was posted to give some more information that we thought would be helpful. Profanity, nudity and "violence" (in this case I suppose that would be considered harrasment/verbal attacks on other posters) is all still against the code of conduct. If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so.
Maybe you should have been more clear on the parts of PG you were alluding to, and the parts you were omitting.
And nobody is looking for a border to cross, just a border at all.
EDIT: And about the part where you say "If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so." That looks a lot like baiting to me, as it is apparent that the poster is not "that kind of person", but was rather looking for a line so as to NOT cross it.
I can see how it can be taken that way - but please understand that I'm very often not talking to one poster, I'm talking to everybody who lurks and posts in our forums. The "you" in question was not focused on any one individual - it was you, as in the reader. And it's not baiting. Seroiously, if you are reading this, and what you want is to be able to swear, talk about violent or offensive stuff and attack other posters, then these aren't the forums for you.
Stop right there. The PG thing was just a familiar reference for some - the code of conduct still applies. The message you linked to wasn't posted so you or others could find a line to walk right up to and possibly not cross. It was posted to give some more information that we thought would be helpful. Profanity, nudity and "violence" (in this case I suppose that would be considered harrasment/verbal attacks on other posters) is all still against the code of conduct. If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so.
Maybe you should have been more clear on the parts of PG you were alluding to, and the parts you were omitting.
And nobody is looking for a border to cross, just a border at all.
EDIT: And about the part where you say "If you're the type of person that really wants to engage in those things, I suggest you find some forums on another site where you can do so." That looks a lot like baiting to me, as it is apparent that the poster is not "that kind of person", but was rather looking for a line so as to NOT cross it.
Jharri knows me and he knows that am not that kind of poster. I think he was alluding to others, but it was my post he had to reference to make that comment. It still doesn't change the fact that without stable lines in the sand, many of us accidently cross them (or cross the arbitrary lines drawn by individual ORCs) and get modded/banned.]
Edit: Whoops! Not sure how I confused your response as being to Jharri and not Trevor, but I managed it :P
Seroiously, if you are reading this, and what you want is to be able to swear, talk about violent or offensive stuff and attack other posters, then these aren't the forums for you.
Seriously, that isn't what he was asking for. Nobody is asking for that.
I find it hard to believe that is what you think his post was about.
You seem to think we are looking to be allowed to act however we wish. That isn't the case. We are looking for consistency in what is allowed and what isn't. Right now, Wizards isn't doing a very good job at providing that.
You might want to clarify a bit on that one.
As to the grey areas of the code of conduct, part of that is on purpose. We can't describe everything that shouldn't be touched on in our forums, and for the most part, I know people understand that. In general people also understand what's likely to offend people and or cross over a line. Example: In general, you don't go out to a resturaunt and hear people talking loudly enough for everyone to hear about sexual acts, criminal activity, or in general just being a nuisance/disruption. You'll see that every once in a while, but in general, people know what buttons they shouldn't be pushing in public.
Forums are a lot like public - everybody can hear you, and we should be acting appropriately. The code of conduct is just a way to try to get some of that behavior on paper.
I have one little issue with what you've been saying here, Trevor. You say that violence is not ok, but D&D (and Magic, for that matter) is an inherently violent game. The basic premise of the game is "Kill stuff. Take the loot. Be a hero." (or "Kill all your enemies to rule the world", in tha case of Magic - IIRC, I haven't played in a loooong time).
You might want to clarify a bit on that one.
If you can't differentiate the difference between discussing in game activities and real life activities, then I think you might have bigger problems to worry about than breaking the CoC.
I have one little issue with what you've been saying here, Trevor. You say that violence is not ok, but D&D (and Magic, for that matter) is an inherently violent game. The basic premise of the game is "Kill stuff. Take the loot. Be a hero." (or "Kill all your enemies to rule the world", in the case of Magic - IIRC, I haven't played in a loooong time).
You might want to clarify a bit on that one.
I thought I did clarify that - in most cases the kind of "violence" we see is attacking posters verbally - that's not cool. Does it really need to be spelled out that talking about defeating an encounter in D&D is okay, but harassing another user or talking about doing violence to a real person is not okay?
The best bet - don't use anything that you think is a swear word. And if you do and it gets reported, understand that it's against the code of conduct.
I have one little issue with what you've been saying here, Trevor. You say that violence is not ok, but D&D (and Magic, for that matter) is an inherently violent game. The basic premise of the game is "Kill stuff. Take the loot. Be a hero." (or "Kill all your enemies to rule the world", in tha case of Magic - IIRC, I haven't played in a loooong time).
You might want to clarify a bit on that one.
If you can't differentiate the difference between discussing in game activities and real life activities, then I think you might have bigger problems to worry about than breaking the CoC.
I'm positive that some people who post in the OTT have had posts talking about game violence modded.
I have one little issue with what you've been saying here, Trevor. You say that violence is not ok, but D&D (and Magic, for that matter) is an inherently violent game. The basic premise of the game is "Kill stuff. Take the loot. Be a hero." (or "Kill all your enemies to rule the world", in tha case of Magic - IIRC, I haven't played in a loooong time).
You might want to clarify a bit on that one.
If you can't differentiate the difference between discussing in game activities and real life activities, then I think you might have bigger problems to worry about than breaking the CoC.
I'm positive that some people who post in the OTT have had posts talking about game violence modded.
And that will probably happen on occasion, but that's not what I am referring to.
I have one little issue with what you've been saying here, Trevor. You say that violence is not ok, but D&D (and Magic, for that matter) is an inherently violent game. The basic premise of the game is "Kill stuff. Take the loot. Be a hero." (or "Kill all your enemies to rule the world", in tha case of Magic - IIRC, I haven't played in a loooong time).
You might want to clarify a bit on that one.
If you can't differentiate the difference between discussing in game activities and real life activities, then I think you might have bigger problems to worry about than breaking the CoC.
I'm positive that some people who post in the OTT have had posts talking about game violence modded.
And that will probably happen on occasion, but that's not what I am referring to.
I must say, I am surprised you are taking WotC side here. You left OTT a while back after you got temp-banned for something you said. At that moment you were really mad at the ORCs and the moderation around here.
What changed?
I wasn't "real mad" at anything. I was frustrated for a day. I've never admired the ORCs jobs because they have to deal with the lot of us. What I was upset with was the person that was doing all of the reporting for whatever whim they fancied.
What I was frustrated about was that I posted an article about the drug cartels making kidnap victims fight to the death and I was reported and suspended for posting a political article, which the article had nothing to do with politics. The ORC made a mistake.
why dont you pm him, you seem like the only one confused about the difference between fantasy viloence and real life violence. maybe you could split hairs and try to be clever via pm
It's not just him, it's also the ORCs. I saw two threads discussing illegal activity in-game and in-game only removed. I even had a post removed but it was later clarified that that was a mistake since action was taken against the thread as a whole - a thread about in-game activities. So yeah, not just him.
Yet I was banned for using the b word, and Jharii has it in his sig for who knows how long.
This is why you get complaints that the moderation is not constant and that ORCs will take take the side of the reproter, instead of using their judgement.
And no, I wasn't insulting anyone or making a nasty comment about women. It was in the old Word Association thread in OTT.
So here we're talking about fairness, or treating people equitably. Someone reported you for using the "b word." This was against the code of conduct, so when the ORC looked into it, they saw that you were breaking the code of conduct and acted.
With Jharii's sig, it apparently wasn't reported so no action was taken. I can see the disparity could cause some frustration, but the orcs didn't single you out or attack you. They simply followed up on a report of violation and then followed through with conduct enforcement. The problem here is that not everybody is reporting the same things all the time - and while we can work to always make that better, that's not a fight we can ever truly win.
So here we're talking about fairness, or treating people equitably. Someone reported you for using the "b word." This was against the code of conduct, so when the ORC looked into it, they saw that you were breaking the code of conduct and acted.
With Jharii's sig, it apparently wasn't reported so no action was taken. I can see the disparity could cause some frustration, but the orcs didn't single you out or attack you. They simply followed up on a report of violation and then followed through with conduct enforcement. The problem here is that not everybody is reporting the same things all the time - and while we can work to always make that better, that's not a fight we can ever truly win.
That's fair and I'm certain it explains a lot of these situations. However, I also know - for a fact - that blatant CoC violations have been reported by multiple members and those reports have gone ignored. I actually just checked to see if one was still around and it still is after several people reported it.
why dont you pm him, you seem like the only one confused about the difference between fantasy viloence and real life violence. maybe you could split hairs and try to be clever via pm
It's not just him, it's also the ORCs. I saw two threads discussing illegal activity in-game and in-game only removed. I even had a post removed but it was later clarified that that was a mistake since action was taken against the thread as a whole - a thread about in-game activities. So yeah, not just him.
And that's going to happen sometimes. Being as impartial as possible means they're going to err on the side of caution at times - which means D&D or roleplaying threads that touch on topics of prostitution, drugs, etc. may be closed. Sometimes those threads go too far and need to remain closed, and sometimes the orcs are just being careful.
One thing I can say is that I'm going to try to do a better job of keeping track of those threads that are closed for review, and reopen these kind of game related ones that aren't stepping into the bad code of conduct area.
So here we're talking about fairness, or treating people equitably. Someone reported you for using the "b word." This was against the code of conduct, so when the ORC looked into it, they saw that you were breaking the code of conduct and acted.
With Jharii's sig, it apparently wasn't reported so no action was taken. I can see the disparity could cause some frustration, but the orcs didn't single you out or attack you. They simply followed up on a report of violation and then followed through with conduct enforcement. The problem here is that not everybody is reporting the same things all the time - and while we can work to always make that better, that's not a fight we can ever truly win.
That's fair and I'm certain it explains a lot of these situations. However, I also know - for a fact - that blatant CoC violations have been reported by multiple members and those reports have gone ignored. I actually just checked to see if one was still around and it still is after several people reported it.
Could you PM me with the specifics of the code of conduct violation so I can look into it?
And that's going to happen sometimes. Being as impartial as possible means they're going to err on the side of caution at times - which means D&D or roleplaying threads that touch on topics of prostitution, drugs, etc. may be closed. Sometimes they go to far and need to remain closed, and sometimes the orcs are just being careful.
One thing I can say is that I'm going to try to do a better job of keeping track of those threads that are closed for review, and reopen these kind of game related ones that aren't stepping into the bad code of conduct area.
Thank you - for the explanation and the future attempts at looking into threads locked for review.
Could you PM me with the specifics of the code of conduct violation so I can look into it?
Sent. Thanks.
The other is that this is mainly about posting in the OTT. One thing that used to be common there is to link to news stories and discuss them. This used to go over just fine and only became problematic when the story was political or religious or the occasional time when two people were just really butting heads and the discussion got heated. But all of a sudden we started getting hit by a series of modstorms and many of these news threads were poofed. They weren't advocating illegal activity, we were just politely discussing something that had happened in the real world. Cases like that are why we ask where the line is drawn, because we see something that was allowed for a long time suddenly get modded and there's no communication to us saying that any of the standards have changed, so apparently it must be that some ORCs had a different idea of what was acceptable than others. If we narrow down those gray areas, then we hope to not run into that issue as often.
When I feel the need to report a violation I cut & paste the actual standard from the CoC that I feel has been violated. In this way the ORC can review the post knowing what I felt was wrong.
At this point it is up to the ORC to decide on the action to take. Sometimes it is fixed and sometimes not. When it is not I’m still upset, but hey that is why the ORCs are there in the first place.
Note that I said “I Feel” and “I Felt. Some things just get my dander up; usually comments of prejudice, sexual and religious reference; but it is still only my opinion.
One thing I can say is that I'm going to try to do a better job of keeping track of those threads that are closed for review, and reopen these kind of game related ones that aren't stepping into the bad code of conduct area.
Serious question/suggestion that doesn't seem to fit into the other thread: Would it be possible for people to attempt to get a thread unlocked? For example, a thread that gets locked has (for example) two or three people who really liked (most of) it, but it got locked for whatever reason. Would it be possible to set up a way for people to request a review with a public decision announced in the thread by someone other than the ORC who locked it? For example, Loki locks a thread, several people disagree with the action and ask for a review. After 2-3 days, Wyvern re-posts that, after further review, the thread will remain locked. It used to be that locked threads had the "will be reviewed and one of several things might happen" clause, but nothing ever seems to happen with them and they waste away.
One thing I can say is that I'm going to try to do a better job of keeping track of those threads that are closed for review, and reopen these kind of game related ones that aren't stepping into the bad code of conduct area.
Serious question/suggestion that doesn't seem to fit into the other thread: Would it be possible for people to attempt to get a thread unlocked? For example, a thread that gets locked has (for example) two or three people who really liked (most of) it, but it got locked for whatever reason. Would it be possible to set up a way for people to request a review with a public decision announced in the thread by someone other than the ORC who locked it? For example, Loki locks a thread, several people disagree with the action and ask for a review. After 2-3 days, Wyvern re-posts that, after further review, the thread will remain locked. It used to be that locked threads had the "will be reviewed and one of several things might happen" clause, but nothing ever seems to happen with them and they waste away.
Sure thing - just PM me with those requests
To be fair though, if it's been closed for a while at this point, I might suggest that you look at where the thread went wrong, and open up a new conversation thread on the same topic while doing your best to avoid those particular issues or trigger points (if it's something that could be avoided at all that is).Sure thing - just PM me with those requests
Thank you. I was more interested in future solutions than remedial thread necros.
One thing I can say is that I'm going to try to do a better job of keeping track of those threads that are closed for review, and reopen these kind of game related ones that aren't stepping into the bad code of conduct area.
Serious question/suggestion that doesn't seem to fit into the other thread: Would it be possible for people to attempt to get a thread unlocked? For example, a thread that gets locked has (for example) two or three people who really liked (most of) it, but it got locked for whatever reason. Would it be possible to set up a way for people to request a review with a public decision announced in the thread by someone other than the ORC who locked it? For example, Loki locks a thread, several people disagree with the action and ask for a review. After 2-3 days, Wyvern re-posts that, after further review, the thread will remain locked. It used to be that locked threads had the "will be reviewed and one of several things might happen" clause, but nothing ever seems to happen with them and they waste away.
Sure thing - just PM me with those requests
I think he was asking for more of a continuous process. When an ORC closes a thread for review, it would be very helpful for that ORC or another to post in the thread the final decision(and why). This would do two things. First, it would let us know the reason the thead would stay closed if it is going to stay closed. Second, the post would move the thread back up to the first page of threads. If the thread is just silently re-opened 3, 4 or 5 days later, it is so far down the list that it might as well have not been re-opened.
Edit: It would do a third thing as well. It would show us that the threads are being looked at further, rather than just locked and ignored as so many seem to be.
One thing I can say is that I'm going to try to do a better job of keeping track of those threads that are closed for review, and reopen these kind of game related ones that aren't stepping into the bad code of conduct area.
Serious question/suggestion that doesn't seem to fit into the other thread: Would it be possible for people to attempt to get a thread unlocked? For example, a thread that gets locked has (for example) two or three people who really liked (most of) it, but it got locked for whatever reason. Would it be possible to set up a way for people to request a review with a public decision announced in the thread by someone other than the ORC who locked it? For example, Loki locks a thread, several people disagree with the action and ask for a review. After 2-3 days, Wyvern re-posts that, after further review, the thread will remain locked. It used to be that locked threads had the "will be reviewed and one of several things might happen" clause, but nothing ever seems to happen with them and they waste away.
Sure thing - just PM me with those requests
I think he was asking for more of a continuous process. When an ORC closes a thread for review, it would be very helpful for that ORC or another to post in the thread the final decision(and why). This would do two things. First, it would let us know the reason the thead would stay closed if it is going to stay closed. Second, the post would move the thread back up to the first page of threads. If the thread is just silently re-opened 3, 4 or 5 days later, it is so far down the list that it might as well have not been re-opened.
Edit: It would do a third thing as well. It would show us that the threads are being looked at further, rather than just locked and ignored as so many seem to be.
I think this comes into me and possibly others on the CM team doing a better job of reviewing those threads. I think what you have here is a good idea - have one of us come in with a final post for the thread if it's going to remain closed or reopen it with "play nice" kind of post.The only different is that it would be, Mike, Quentin, or Steve - not an ORC.
I have a question about ORCs posting that has nothing to do with moderation, and I guess this is the place for it. Are ORCs permitted to join in discussions, or are they functioning under a rulebook that says they can only moderate and not participate?
So here we're talking about fairness, or treating people equitably. Someone reported you for using the "b word." This was against the code of conduct, so when the ORC looked into it, they saw that you were breaking the code of conduct and acted.
With Jharii's sig, it apparently wasn't reported so no action was taken. I can see the disparity could cause some frustration, but the orcs didn't single you out or attack you. They simply followed up on a report of violation and then followed through with conduct enforcement. The problem here is that not everybody is reporting the same things all the time - and while we can work to always make that better, that's not a fight we can ever truly win.
That's fair and I'm certain it explains a lot of these situations. However, I also know - for a fact - that blatant CoC violations have been reported by multiple members and those reports have gone ignored. I actually just checked to see if one was still around and it still is after several people reported it.
Exactly. That's the area I feel comes across as most unbalanced. And it happens a lot it seems.
im going to have to disagree with you there
That's totally kewl an' all, but for your information I PMd Trevor with the details of the example I mentioned, he took a look and he agreed the ball was dropped (note: not his words). So, at least this once they did exactly what we're talking about - ban some but refuse to even edit the CoC violation in another member's post after it was reported multiple times. It happened. Likely still will on occasion. ORCs is people, too, and it's in the nature of all people to fail at times.
im going to have to disagree with you there
That's totally kewl an' all, but for your information I PMd Trevor with the details of the example I mentioned, he took a look and he agreed the ball was dropped (note: not his words). So, at least this once they did exactly what we're talking about - ban some but refuse to even edit the CoC violation in another member's post after it was reported multiple times. It happened. Likely still will on occasion. ORCs is people, too, and it's in the nature of all people to fail at times.
And I think we can say, we accept that. I certainly don't think it's impossible for a person to NOT make mistakes. But when you try and address what you consider a mistake, you come up against a wall of: "All Orc decisions are final, we stand behind their choices, and we will not reverse their decision."
Which is basically saying, Orcs are always right, even when they are wrong.
If Trevor wants us to see the Orcs as people who are doing their best and sometimes get things wrong, then having that attitude that no Orc choice can ever be reversed, doesn't help us see them as people doing the best job they can.
My major issue is that HUGE portions of the CoC are so vague, there is no way to know where the line is.
"No way" at all? Seriously, there's "no way" to know?
It reads to me like you'd prefer the CoC do your thinking for you. That's not what the CoC is for.
That allows the ORCs a huge amount of varriance in what they mod/ban us for and what they don't. I want to know where the lines are so that I don't cross them, or if I do, that I intentionally crossed them and actually deserved to be modded/banned.
That's impossible. There is always—always—going to be a level of subjectivity.
That subjectivity is something that's literally not going to go away.
I would respectfully suggest that if this is unnacceptable to you, then start your own forum as so many others have done and write the rules yourself.
That's impossible. There is always—always—going to be a level of subjectivity.
That subjectivity is something that's literally not going to go away.
I would respectfully suggest that if this is unnacceptable to you, then start your own forum as so many others have done and write the rules yourself.
Well, like many of us have said, we know there is going to be a level of subjectivity. But Trevor insists that they do their job without any bias or objectivity.
It's just not possible. But then Trevor admits that mistakes do get made. And he's willing to listen at least.
I also want to remind those here that still have questions and are asking them that Trevor stated he'd be away for a bit at PAX so be patient. He's the only one talking to us directly so we'll just have to wait 'til he gets back. No biggie, right?
Aaaaaaaand ... I've done lost whatever point I was trying to make.
Maybe the point is that even a system that seems mostly arbitrary and often staggeringly unfair can still be improved by increased transparency?
Maybe the point is that even a system that seems mostly arbitrary and often staggeringly unfair can still be improved by increased transparency?
Yeah, that sounds good.
It reads to me like you'd prefer the CoC do your thinking for you. That's not what the CoC is for.
Or else I don't like.....vague guidelines that can be interprested 100 different ways by 100 ORCs with no consistency in their rulings.
That's impossible. There is always—always—going to be a level of subjectivity.
That subjectivity is something that's literally not going to go away.
That doesn't mean you just say screw it and make something even more vague and create an even higher level of subjectivity.
I would respectfully suggest that if this is unnacceptable to you, then start your own forum as so many others have done and write the rules yourself.
And I would suggest that you learn to accept that other people think differently than you do and that it's okay for others to not share your opinions.
Or else I don't like.....vague guidelines that can be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 ORCs with no consistency in their rulings.
If this were the case, you’d have cause for a major complaint.
That doesn't mean you just say screw it and make something even more vague and create an even higher level of subjectivity.
Fortunately this is not something that I—or anyone else for that matter—is suggesting.
I have some major problems with the policies the ORCs operate under and I can see that you do too, but I don't agree that the answer lies in tedious rewording of the Code of Conduct.
I say this because—just like the rules for Dungeons & Dragons—you can't ever have a perfect, or even near-perfect, set of rules and guidelines that cover every situation.
If you want this, well then prepare for disappointment, in perpetuity, on these forums as well as life in general.
At some point you have to make your own decisions about what is or isn't appropriate to post in a thread with the information you already have.* If you're not sure, don't post it.
Since I’m pretty sure you feel differently, I'd like to know what are the top five sections and wordings from the CoC that you feel are most vague and lead to:
1) Inconsistent rulings.
2) Situations where it became impossible to know whether something could be posted or not by you.
If you can tie each to specific instances where those presumably flawed sections allowed for inconsistent moderation that led to you having a negative forum experience, all the better.
Not sure if this is the thread for such examples, but I'd still like to see them.
And I would suggest that you learn to accept that other people think differently than you do and that it's okay for others to not share your opinions.
Oh I do, on both fronts.
However, you weren't giving your opinion. You were making valid claims that, so far, don't hold up to reasonable scrutiny.
Note: just because a bunch of other people complain or feel as you do doesn’t make those claims any more true.
*I haven't seen much in regard to this simple fact of life from you or anyone else on the complaint-side of things.
I have some major problems with the policies the ORCs operate under and I can see that you do too, but I don't agree that the answer lies in tedious rewording of the Code of Conduct.
I say this because—just like the rules for Dungeons & Dragons—you can't ever have a perfect, or even near-perfect, set of rules and guidelines that cover every situation.
I agree. You can't spell out every circumstance. However, you can make things clearer than they are without attempting such a tedious and impossible re-working.
You can also set down a log of precedents for ORCs to refer to, so that they can see how something was ruled in the past and rule in a similar manner or set down a new precedent if their situation is unique.
Since I’m pretty sure you feel differently, I'd like to know what are the top five sections and wordings from the CoC that you feel are most vague and lead to inconsistent rulings?
God. I made a post on this a long time ago, but hell if I can remember where it was. Right now I'm at work and don't have time for it right now, but there are a lot of areas that are open to a lot of interpretation.
However, you weren't giving your opinion. You were making valid claims that, so far, don't hold up to reasonable scrutiny.
You've read the CoC. You don't see how vague many of the areas are?
You've read the CoC. You don't see how vague many of the areas are?
He is not claiming they are not vague. He is claiming that their vagueness does not leave him wondering what he is and is not allowed to post.
He has asked you to point to those areas where you believe the vague wording leads to confusion, and to provide new wording that you believe will remedy the confusion that you claim the current wording creates.
What, do you think we are all making this stuff up? Just because we can and have nothing better to do?
The very fact that we have these threads and discussion is a direct result of the vaugeness of the CoC.
That's debatable, as the discussion in these threads show. ;)
What, do you think we are all making this stuff up? Just because we can and have nothing better to do?
Speaking in general terms, I think that sometimes people with bullhorns just like to hear themselves speak.
As well, that it's easier (and gratifying in a simplistic sort of way) to hammer away with forum complaints, as opposed to getting down to the nitty gritty and really disentangling one's sentiments and feelings from the any objective consdieration of the practical side of having to run and moderate a forum website filled with smart, opinionated people.
Hello Robin_HoodlumThe very fact that we have these threads and discussion is a direct result of the vaugeness of the CoC.
That's debatable, as the discussion in these threads show. ;)What, do you think we are all making this stuff up? Just because we can and have nothing better to do?
Speaking in general terms, I think that sometimes people with bullhorns just like to hear themselves speak.
As well, that it's easier (and gratifying in a simplistic sort of way) to hammer away with forum complaints, as opposed to getting down to the nitty gritty and really disentangling one's sentiments and feelings from the any objective consdieration of the practical side of having to run and moderate a forum website filled with smart, opinionated people.
So you accuse those who think there are problems with the CoC and moderation of just being "loud" and "wanting to hear themselves speak"?
So, you think Trevor is just "humoring" those with complaints?
How condescending and arrogant of you.
Would you mind allowing an exception to the OTT's "No D&D Talk" rule for Play by Post roleplaying threads?
So you accuse those who think there are problems with the CoC and moderation of just being "loud" and "wanting to hear themselves speak"?
Although I did not make the accusation, I would comfortably say that the answer to your question is, "Some of them, yes." BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. NOT EVEN MOST OF THEM.
The reasons for most of the mods, warnings, and bans are pretty obvious, as people in this and many other threads have explicitly stated. Indeed, the existence of this thread is because *some* of the mods, warnings, and bans have been unclear or confusing. Nobody in this thread has stated or implied that everything is crystal clear, and nobody has denounced even the majority of confusion claims as feigned or invalid.
Mr_Miscellany's comments were in response to claims made by a specific poster that the CoC is so vague that he has no idea what is allowed and what is not. Mr_Miscellany suggested that said poster share a few specific entries in the CoC that cause such confusion in their vagueness *and* to provide wording that said poster believes would remove the confusion. (Said poster has not yet done so.)
So, you think Trevor is just "humoring" those with complaints? How condescending and arrogant of you.
If that is what you believe Mr_Miscellany has stated, there is little that I (nor probably he) could say. You have taken offense at a statement not directed at or toward you, assumed it is talking about you, and intentionally returned fire with a personal insult. Not exactly a path conducive toward conversation or even reconciliation, but the leveling of such insults tends to be an indication that conversation and reconciliation are not desired courses anyway.
If that is what you believe Mr_Miscellany has stated, there is little that I (nor probably he) could say. You have taken offense at a statement not directed at or toward you, assumed it is talking about you, and intentionally returned fire with a personal insult. Not exactly a path conducive toward conversation or even reconciliation, but the leveling of such insults tends to be an indication that conversation and reconciliation are not desired courses anyway.
Yes, I believe that is what he stated because that is what he implied.
No, it wasn't directed at me, but it was directed at my friends, and I defend my friends when I believe they have been wronged or slighted.
If my personal observation about his attitude is an insult, it should have been reported as such and left to the ORCs to decide if it was an actual offense, not for you to bait me over it.
Well, he can insult those with a problem with the CoC and moderation by saying they are just wanting to "hear themselves talk", so I guess that was "conducive toward conversation or even reconciliation".
*shrug*
Mr_Miscellany suggested that said poster share a few specific entries in the CoC that cause such confusion in their vagueness *and* to provide wording that said poster believes would remove the confusion.
Section 1 is a problem because it's also retroactive. You can have someone choose a name that's perfectly fine when they choose it then ten years later the mods decide it's no longer acceptable and BAM. Whether that's good or bad (if something becomes a slur or a certain name gains strong associations with a person, then yeah, even if you predated the popular meaning it should probably still be changed), it does take strict compliance out of one's hands seeing as none of us are seers. But people still get punished as if they intentionally choose their name ten years ago to violate the CoC today. Still, pretty good, even if it does have a few problems.
Section 2 is pretty vague, especially when you remember that pornographic doesn't necessarily mean depictions of sex act, that obscene is a community-dependent term and very little actually meets that requirement (before you can argue that something is obscene you should look at the rental records of the local adult video store, the google searches for area, and the pay-per-view selections.) "Offensive" is also pretty vague and [insert appropriate adjetive suggesting excessiveness here]. I mean really, I get offended by stupidity, lack-of-ego, cowardice and certain shades of pink. Should that mean that stupid people should get off the forums? That'd be silly. So clearly when they say "offensive" they don't actually mean "offensive", they mean some sub-set that isn't actually described. And let's not forget that they do allow discriminatory language, even if only for debate, and that discriminatory language isn't always bad (I discriminate against all men who aren't my boyfriend when it comes to who I sleep with. Wanna report me for saying so?). Oh, and to top it off, their filter is [weird, unusual, odd, overly-excited, not-quite-right-in-the-head] and doesn't allow Guiness, the name of a common beer that's popular on St. Patty's day. Unless they did finally fix that and I just look silly, but if it's fixed then I'll accept looking silly because goodness knows that one has been going on forever (and yes, I've told them. Repeatedly. Over a year ago.)
Edit: Hey! They finally fixed Guiness! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Section 3 is all about the ambiguity, especially since it gets to personal relations which are about as clear-cut as a cat in a possibly-radioactive-gas-filled-box. That "discomfort" bit is particularly fun, because they either flat-out ignore it all the time (there are quite a few people that are discomforted by the simple existence of Astrid's Parlor), or it gets taken too far in it's application. Harassment is a hard thing to prove, so it's another that goes too far or not far enough, based on the whims of the mod who gets the report, it's sometimes easy to confuse trolling and baiting with simply being a disagreeable fellow. I mean really, you are aware that when a whole bunch of people are saying "we have a serious problem here" and you come along and say (a bit nicer) "you're all a bunch of whiners" that you're effectively making a "inflammatory [statement], such as [one] designed to elicit a negative response from the [OTTers]." It's so easy to stretch that one, and it happens.
Moving to section 4, we get that wonderful little section about not promoting, glorifying, engaging and so-on in illegal activity or coordinating such. Which sounds easy and great, right? But who's laws? It's certainly not specific to wherever the poster is (we've had people modded for talking about prostitition, which isn't illegal where they were at), it's not specific to the US in general (hello Vegas!), it's not equally applied (how much gambling gets talked about? In most places of the US casinos aren't legal, that's why they end up on Indian reservations because they get to make their own laws). It's also not specific to Washington state, seeing as I've yet to get modded for talking about engagement rings for my boyfriend (seeing as I'm a man and SSM is still off limits there, that would be planning, talking about, glorifying, and fully intending to commit an act illegal in Washington state. Gonna report me?) Toss in that the "glorifying" part is awful vague (apparently talking about prostition/slavery in a negative fashion is "glorifying", according to some bans and mods that have been handed out, and that some mods think that talking about changing laws is advocating breaking current ones, and arguing that it's so clear cut is an awful hard proposition.
Section 5 is about impersonation. Hey, a clear-cut one! Woo!
Section 6 gets us over to "disruption". Like posting a thread in the Off Topic Tavern about world events, apparently. Because, as I've been informed by the Mods, world events are de facto political. So, according to this mod, I was supposed to not only read the stickied "cleaning the tavern's tables" thread (reasonable) but divine that non-political topics that happen over seas are considered political by the mods, even if the post, discussion of events, and so-on aren't. Oh, and that things can be willy-nilly declared "controversial" whether or not there's actually any controversy, and that something doesn't have to be actually disruptive, just potentially disruptive. And to top it off, the mods don't even read the posts half the time! I've been modded for being disruptive when I was making an on-topic post in direct response to something said by another poster. Fact is, they are more then willing to stretch "disruptive" to anything they want. And seeing as most reasonable people who aren't familiar with the history of these forums would probably read "disruptive" as "oh, if it causes a disruption", these demands for unnatural foresight are quite odd.
Seven isn't as ambiguous as the others, but it does have some things. Can I talk about how I like Dr. Pepper? Is it kosher to talk about a particular brand of kilt or weird-foot-glove things? If we're talking legally, there's some fuzzy lines we could adhere to, but the mods have already demonstrated that I know more about the law then they do, so it'd be rather odd for them to care about it now. Still, I haven't actually heard of unjust moderations or bans on the basis of a section 7 violation, so despite it's vagueness it works.
8 and 9 I have no complaints about.
And no, I really don't feel the need to suppy better wording. I'm not a car mechanic, but I can still recognize when my truck starts breaking down, and while I might not be a policy writer, I can still pick up on when it's demonstratably got problems.
So you accuse those who think there are problems with the CoC and moderation of just being "loud" and "wanting to hear themselves speak"?
One should never be so primed for an argument that they think it necessary to jump in and "defend" themselves and their associates from the merest mention of skepticism.
Otherwise you're doing it wrong.
In discussions like these, righteous indignation isn't your friend.
So, you think Trevor is just "humoring" those with complaints? How condescending and arrogant of you.
You can really tell what I think? You can read the minds of strangers on the internet?
But since you asked: yes, if someone posts that the entire CoC is "so vague and unclear" that you can't ever tell when and what to post, then Trevor responds to this (and other, far more smartly worded and carefully considered statements from others on the same subject) by opening up a dialogue about how things work, then I think he's humoring the complainers while honoring the rest.
If one considers the content of one's posts, they can pretty easily determine what category they fall under.
You can really tell what I think? You can read the minds of strangers on the internet?
Why not?
You seem to think you can.
One should never be so primed for an argument that they think it necessary to jump in and "defend" themselves and their associates from the merest mention of skepticism.
Why not?
One should never be so primed for an argument that they think it necessary to jump in and "defend" themselves and their associates from the merest mention of skepticism.
That's easier to say if you don't feel that you and/or the group that you are a part of may have been unfairly targeted by certain individuals. Also keep in mind that until Trevor opened up that thread, all complaints were essentially brushed off and not taken seriously. Things like that tend to make people a little more touchy than normal.
Otherwise you're doing it wrong.
Is that really necessary?
In discussions like these, righteous indignation isn't your friend.
No, it isn't, but it may be understandable nonetheless.
But since you asked: yes, if someone posts that the entire CoC is "so vague and unclear" that you can't ever tell when and what to post, then Trevor responds to this (and other, far more smartly worded and carefully considered statements from others on the same subject) by opening up a dialogue about how things work, then I think he's humoring the complainers while honoring the rest.
Some people are better at communicating their points than others. Some get more emotional about certain subjects than others. It doesn't mean that they don't actually feel the way they claim to or that the wrongs they claim to have witnessed didn't actually occur.
If one considers the content of one's posts, they can pretty easily determine what category they fall under.
And one might also need to keep in mind that content can be misleading without context.
It's vague,so you can't go "but i'm touching the line but i haven't crossed it."
IIRC There's a post somewhere either in this thread or one of the ones startedf by Trevor in whic he says why the CoC is so vague,which was basically summed up as..
It's vague,so you can't go "but i'm touching the line but i haven't crossed it."
Too bad it is so vague that one often doesn't know when one is even near the line, let alone having crossed it.
And if one is "touching the line" but not crossing it, where is the problem? I mean if the line isn't crossed, there is no foul, right? So what exactly is wrong with "touching the line" but not crossing it?
Maybe if the "line" were better defined, one would have a better idea where the "line" is, and maybe do a better job at not crossing it.
Too bad it is so vague that one often doesn't know when one is even near the line, let alone having crossed it.
And if one is "touching the line" but not crossing it, where is the problem? I mean if the line isn't crossed, there is no foul, right? So what exactly is wrong with "touching the line" but not crossing it?
Maybe if the "line" were better defined, one would have a better idea where the "line" is, and maybe do a better job at not crossing it.
The CoC is clear enough such that the overwhelming majority of posters on the site are able to post regularly, and frequently, without running afoul of it. HEck, even new posters to the site, who may not have ever read the CoC, are able to post without breaking it.
The CoC is clear enough such that the overwhelming majority of posters on the site are able to post regularly, and frequently, without running afoul of it. HEck, even new posters to the site, who may not have ever read the CoC, are able to post without breaking it.
Or it could be that as long as a noob is not being grossly over the line they get more leaniacy... Most of us will forgive an outburst from someone with a bran new account or low post counts. However for some of us that welcome period ended ten years ago.
If we were to take your situation, then there would be a lot of people that have been here a long time stating that the CoC is unclear. Instead, we have an extremely small number (almost to the point of being non-existant when compared to the total population of the boards) complaining about the CoC being unclear.
Occam's Razor says that a much higher likelihood is that the overwhelming majority of people who post on these forums post and simply do not break the CoC because the CoC is clear enough to them that they can post regularly on the forums.
On the other hand, if you are regularly posting in forums where it is easier to fall into the gray areas (such as what constitutes advocating illegal activity when many of our threads were about news stories, many of which mentioned crime), it is much more likely that you would have an issue with the vagueness of the CoC.
So the CoC really is only problematic in certain cases, but those cases are much more likely to occur in very specific forums (the OTT, maybe Astrids or d20 Modern, neither of which seems to see much activity), which would pretty easily explain why only a small subset of posters are experiencing issues. However, the case he mentioned (leniency towards newer posters) might very well apply within those specific forums.
Or the majority of the community posts in forums where the situations are pretty clear cut and the less clear areas of the CoC don't really come into play.
I think this is a very vaild point. But I believe it proves the rule. The CoC is clear enough to make sense in most of the circumstances we would see on most of the forums.
The OTT, on the other hand, is an environment in which the rules of posting are already different. It is inherently not bound by a topic boundary as set by the name of the forum. I suspect NO posts are EVER moved form the OTT to another Fourm with the possible exception of threads that (d)evolve into Community Business.
I would suggest that the resolution of the problem that occurs when the vagueness of the CoC meets the ambiguity of the OTT lies not in more clearly defining the CoC (which would likelyt result in greater difficulty in moderating non-OTT forums), but rather, in the ORCs and such laying off of the OTT -- perhaps even not modding at all except for explicit porn.
I'd almost go so far as to suggest that WotC move the OTT to an "off-site" location (but linked to via the Forums as usual) that includes a "Here there be dragons" warning to anyone that wants to go there, and just keep the mods out of the OTT entirely. I think the folks that serve as regulars in the OTT can probably handle the jerknaught who chooses to rain on their parade. (Again, only almost.)
Or the majority of the community posts in forums where the situations are pretty clear cut and the less clear areas of the CoC don't really come into play.
I think this is a very vaild point. But I believe it proves the rule. The CoC is clear enough to make sense in most of the circumstances we would see on most of the forums.
The OTT, on the other hand, is an environment in which the rules of posting are already different. It is inherently not bound by a topic boundary as set by the name of the forum. I suspect NO posts are EVER moved form the OTT to another Fourm with the possible exception of threads that (d)evolve into Community Business.
I would suggest that the resolution of the problem that occurs when the vagueness of the CoC meets the ambiguity of the OTT lies not in more clearly defining the CoC (which would likelyt result in greater difficulty in moderating non-OTT forums), but rather, in the ORCs and such laying off of the OTT -- perhaps even not modding at all except for explicit porn.
I'd almost go so far as to suggest that WotC move the OTT to an "off-site" location (but linked to via the Forums as usual) that includes a "Here there be dragons" warning to anyone that wants to go there, and just keep the mods out of the OTT entirely. I think the folks that serve as regulars in the OTT can probably handle the jerknaught who chooses to rain on their parade. (Again, only almost.)
I think those are some good points and good ideas, but I don't know that WotC would really go for any of them. If they link to an off-site forum, well then what's the point of having an OTT? If we just wanted to talk to random people from anywhere, well we could do that anywhere. Having it in the D&D forums lets us talk about non-D&D stuff but with people that share similar interests (like D&D). And while us regulars could meet up elsewhere online to chat, it would be harder to bring new D&D-ers into our fold. I think pretty much all of us started off posting in other forums before drifting into the OTT.
And while your idea about mods just backing off the OTT definitely has some merit, I just don't see it happening. Among other issues, anyone else who gets modded would immediately point to the OTT and say "but they did it!". We've been complaining about inconsistant moderation and that suggestion would make it the rule rather than a mistake. The only way I could see it happening is if there was almost an entirely different set of rules spelled out for the OTT (which there is to a lesser degree now, but that's just due to the nature of the forum). And in that case it wouldn't so much be that the mods back off as they just start enforcing different rules. I like it, but like I said I don't expect anything of the sort.
If they link to an off-site forum, well then what's the point of having an OTT? If we just wanted to talk to random people from anywhere, well we could do that anywhere. Having it in the D&D forums lets us talk about non-D&D stuff but with people that share similar interests (like D&D). And while us regulars could meet up elsewhere online to chat, it would be harder to bring new D&D-ers into our fold. I think pretty much all of us started off posting in other forums before drifting into the OTT.
When I say "off-site forum" I mean something that doesn't carry the "community.wizards.com" URL. That doesn't mean it isn't theirs. Nor would it be accessible by anyone else who doesn't have a Wizards account. It's just that it would be clear and evident to everyone that enters the OTT that they are "leaving" the regular Boards and entering a different venue. It would still be Wizards members only.
At least, that's what I was attempting to describe.
At least, that's what I was attempting to describe.
Oh ok, I misunderstood you. That makes a little more sense.
Because the OTT is such a small part of the forums, and because the OTTers are a very specific subculture with unique cultural norms that don't really apply elsewhere, the ORCs are never going to be as cognizant of the social pecadillos of OTT as the OTTers are. And that means there were always be friction because the ORCs are always going to miss subtext and context.
Nor is Wizards going to instruct ORCs to be more proactive in reviewing threads. Community management is a loss leader. In order to have enough staff so that the ORCs can actually take the tiem to read posts that haven't been reported thoroughly enough to moderate to the OTTers' satisfaction, they would need to hire more ORCs. And that's simply not going to happen. If the choice were to hire another ORC or shut down the Off-Topic Tavern, I'm pretty sure the Tavern would be shuttered.
Nor are they going to clarify a CoC that otherwise works fine for the forums simply to make a forum that explicitly has nothing to do with the games they are promoting. All that will do is make moderation in the other boards more problematic, and I don't actually think it will help the off-topic tavern because it's impossible to have a specific set of conduct rules for a forum that explicitly has an unlimited scope of topics.
So as I see it, the Community Management folks like Trevor have very few tools at their disposal to make this better. He'll post threads and try to look at specific complaints from time to time. But structurally, I don't think anything can be done about moderation and the Off-Topic Tavern. It's too much of an outlier to the forums in general and it would require unacceptable levels of effort to make it work, which would have unintended condequences in the rest of the forums.
The solution, to the extent there is one, is with the OTTer regulars. Make a private group (let's call it the "Speakeasy"). Invite all the regular OTTers (and any newcomers who begin posting there) and anytime a thread is in danger of being moderated in OTT, start a new one with the same topic in the Speakeasy. The core OTTers can serve as moderators and can make their own Code of Conduct that they'll apply. If anybody begins reporting Speakeasy threads to the ORCs, the Speakeasy Mods can boot them from the private group. Since ORCs only go to posts that are reported, as long as everyone follows the Speakeasy rule of no reporting posts, you're golden.
Consistancy is the key. If they were consistant there would be no problem.
Realistically, it ain't gonna happen. Consistency will require very specific training and spending more time on setting out criteria for limits on an entire universe of topics that would apply only to OTT.
The suggestion of go make your own sub-forum has been enacted, but lets face it not everyone stays there
Then let's face it -- those people are going to be subject to inconsistent moderation. Because they are engaged in a topic that is obscure, infinitely variated, and prone to fairly arbitrary value judgments. So you can play paintball in the specially designated area that the paintball aficionados created, or you can go and shoot paintball guns in the streets. But if you do that, at some point, don't be surprised if a cop thinks you've got a real gun and shoots you with real bullets.
Mr_Miscellany's comments were in response to claims made by a specific poster that the CoC is so vague that he has no idea what is allowed and what is not. Mr_Miscellany suggested that said poster share a few specific entries in the CoC that cause such confusion in their vagueness *and* to provide wording that said poster believes would remove the confusion. (Said poster has not yet done so.)
Wow. A completely false characterization of what I said. It has been ages since I have interacted with you on these forums and you are still pulling your old tricks.
As for my response, I told you all that I would be busy. I will try to find time to go through the CoC and post later.
Too bad it is so vague that one often doesn't know when one is even near the line, let alone having crossed it.
And if one is "touching the line" but not crossing it, where is the problem? I mean if the line isn't crossed, there is no foul, right? So what exactly is wrong with "touching the line" but not crossing it?
Maybe if the "line" were better defined, one would have a better idea where the "line" is, and maybe do a better job at not crossing it.
The CoC is clear enough such that the overwhelming majority of posters on the site are able to post regularly, and frequently, without running afoul of it. HEck, even new posters to the site, who may not have ever read the CoC, are able to post without breaking it.
If everyone started reporting every post that they think MIGHT violate the CoC, all hell would break loose. The majority of people don't run afoul of it because most posts that might violate the CoC are not reported and the ORCs don't just read each thread looking for violations like they should. There would be much better moderation if it was taken out of our hands and placed entirely in ORC hands.
The solution, to the extent there is one, is with the OTTer regulars. Make a private group (let's call it the "Speakeasy"). Invite all the regular OTTers (and any newcomers who begin posting there) and anytime a thread is in danger of being moderated in OTT, start a new one with the same topic in the Speakeasy. The core OTTers can serve as moderators and can make their own Code of Conduct that they'll apply. If anybody begins reporting Speakeasy threads to the ORCs, the Speakeasy Mods can boot them from the private group. Since ORCs only go to posts that are reported, as long as everyone follows the Speakeasy rule of no reporting posts, you're golden.
That was already done some time ago. And it works for us regulars. However, if we were to post only in that group, we go back to the issue of never being able to bring new blood into the fold or allow for the occasional casual poster to join into the conversations (no need to be a regular to enjoy the OTT and we do like it when other people drop in). Therefore, even with that group there is still plenty of reason to continue posting in the OTT. And so long as people are posting in the OTT there is possibility for friction with the ORCs. However, while I've noticed that we are the majority of the ones experiencing issues, we are not the only ones, so maybe any solutions that help us out will help others too.
Mr_Miscellany's comments were in response to claims made by a specific poster that the CoC is so vague that he has no idea what is allowed and what is not. Mr_Miscellany suggested that said poster share a few specific entries in the CoC that cause such confusion in their vagueness *and* to provide wording that said poster believes would remove the confusion. (Said poster has not yet done so.)
Wow. A completely false characterization of what I said.
If I have mischaracterized your statement:
My major issue is that HUGE portions of the CoC are so vague, there is no way to know where the line is.
... then I am sorry. Mischaracterization was not my intent, and I meant you no offense.
What I'm trying to say is that drastic action isn't being asked for. I don't think anyone is looking for carte blanche in the Tavern. What they are seeking is some answers to some genuine questions. And, so far, we're starting to get those. As long as this interaction continues, I think things will be fine. Everyone seems to understand that there's a totally different dynamic at play in the Tavern. Everyone should, then, understand that questions are going to pop up from time to time - and at a much greater frequency than anywhere else. Having someone listen to these questions and do their best to provide answers (even if we don't like 'em ;)) makes a huge difference. That's really all we need, I think.
Everyone seems to understand that there's a totally different dynamic at play in the Tavern. Everyone should, then, understand that questions are going to pop up from time to time - and at a much greater frequency than anywhere else. Having someone listen to these questions and do their best to provide answers (even if we don't like 'em) makes a huge difference.
Just quoting to make sure this gets proper billing front-and-center.
1. Choose your account’s screen names carefully. Screen names that are deemed offensive may be modified or deactivated without notice. For example:
- Names of offensive or notorious persons, controversial political figures, references to cultural tragedies or of significant religious or occult meaning
Notorious according to who? Many names are notorious on local levels. At what point does a name stop being notorious locally and become notorious enough to warrant modding/banning? I have no idea. Some names are very notorious, such as Charles Manson, but many, if not most are not so clear cut and will be ruled yay or nay by an ORC who has to choose on his own personal subjective criteria or because someone complained about the name.
Controversial political figures? I don't even know what that means. Every single person in politics is subject to controversy at some level. They all have stances that many agree with and many others disagree with. Yet it is clear that not all political figures are considered "controversial" by WoTC or they would just say, "No political figures at all." So now I am expected to try and puzzle out exactly what level of controversy qualifies. No thank you. There isn't a chance in hell I can figure that out based on those three words.
Cultural tragedies, significant religious or occult meaning? Do you have any idea how many religions, cultures and occults are out there? I can't even begin to understand a significant portion of them, let alone figure out if I have somehow come up with a name that might reference (or be very close to referencing) something significant to one of them. I know a fair amount about some of the major ones, but even then I don't know nearly everything about them and could very easily accidently get something wrong.Names containing profanity, obscene slang, graphic anatomical references, racial, ethnic, sexist, or religious slurs
- Names with word combinations that produce an offensive result
"offensive result" Okay. Shozbott. I'm sure someone out there is offended by Mork and Mindy. Therefore, an account with the name Shozbott produces an offensive result. Yes, I agree with you that my example is absurd, yet it clearly fits their criteria. So what then do they mean? At what point do word combinations that offend people stop producing an "offensive result" When it is 10 people or less being offended? 100? Is it a percentage? 50%? 35%? I have no freaking clue. That sentence is too vague for me figure out. I can be sure of a very few things, such as racial slurs and such, but if it isn't completely over the top like that, I can't be sure at all. Almost everything is offensive to people to some degree or another.
- Names of or references to illicit substances or drug-related paraphernalia
I don't even recognize most of the slang terms for these things anymore and never really knew most of them when I was young enough to know the ones from my generation. I was a good boy when it came to drugs. Some of the terms though, or so unnassuming that if you didn't KNOW it was slang for drugs, you would be impossible to tell that it was actually slang for drug related things. While it isn't vague persay, it does expect us to become a researcher just to pick a freaking name.
- Names with the intent or effect of harming the reputation of another
Heh. Very few of these can actually be proven. Knowing the intent behind why someone chose the name is nearly impossible. Some would be obvious simply by the name, but many would not be so obvious and given the number of people on these forums, someone accidently choosing a similar name that someone thinks might be targetting them is fairly high. This rule is not necessarily vague, but it is rather silly. Better to just axe this rule and for those very few times where someone does do this, mod it for disruption or harrassment or something.
- Names including protocol prefixes and domain suffixes (e.g. http://, .org, .com)
Whoah. One that is clearcut all the way around.
- Names that impersonate the representation of a specific business or website, including any business or website you may operate or represent
What does that even mean? "Impersonate the representation" I have no clue. With millions of businesses and websites, virtually anything do this. If I do a google search on "Seeker", how many websites will come up that he might accidently be "impersonating" or "representing" I just typed Maxperson in to google and 2.6 million results came up. Am I supposed to know them all? My name could very easily accidently represent hundreds or thousands of those hits. I shudder to think of how many Seeker would show. How are we supposed to avoid this rule?
- Proper names of Wizards of the Coast staff or their titles Misspellings, phonetic, and alternative spellings of prohibited names are subject to modification or deactivation. Variations of a deactivated screen name, as may be evidenced by your declarations under a new screen name that you are "really" the deactivated name, may also be deactivated and the account holder may have his or her account terminated.
This is clear, but seeing as I have no way of knowing the names and titles of the vast majority of WoTC staff, it might be hard to avoid. Variations of a deactivates screen name? The ONLY way I can really know that is if it was one of my own. How many deactivated screen names are out there that we have no idea of? Tons. It would be extraordinarily easy to accidently come up with a screen name that someone else got deactivated 4 years ago. If new person types in a name that he wants and it comes up as unavailable, he can't know WHY it was unavailable. Should he be modded/banned because he comes up with a variation of it and it happens that someone else got it deactivated at some point?
I am out of time and I think I will just post one portion of the CoC at a time as I have time to get to them.
Choose your account’s screen names carefully.
[...]
I am out of time and I think I will just post one portion of the CoC at a time as I have time to get to them.
Is it reasonable on our part to assume that this CoC rule caused you confuion and difficulty in choosing a screen name?
Choose your account’s screen names carefully.
[...]
I am out of time and I think I will just post one portion of the CoC at a time as I have time to get to them.
Is it reasonable on our part to assume that this CoC rule caused you confuion and difficulty in choosing a screen name?
It's reasonable to assume that no one can choose a screen name with any certainty. The CoC is simply too vague and there are just too many ways to accidently violate it. I was pointing out vagueness, not complaining about my own choice of name ;)
It's reasonable to assume that no one can choose a screen name with any certainty.
It's just as reasonable to assume that most users have chosen a screen name and not violated the section of the CoC in question.
This is because uncertainity doesn't always produce problems.
When it does, you'll find those problems are few.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
The CoC is simply too vague and there are just too many ways to accidently violate it. I was pointing out vagueness, not complaining about my own choice of name ;)
Actually, the CoC is quite clear.
100% clear.
The kicker is that it's relying on you to decide for yourself whether the screen name you come up with, words you use, link you post to, etc...violate these specific, crystal clear criteria.
For example, when you created "Maxperson" were you intending to impersonate anyone or anything? Max Muscle? Max Payne? Max Headroom?
I doubt you were. I also doubt ORCs go on missions to look for possible similarities.
Unless a screen name is immediately recognizable as impersonation, I don't think you or any other user is going to get a visit from an ORC. There is no Sword of Damocles here.
More to the point: it's quite possible for a user to not know a term is slang or offensive, or a screen name an impersonation, etc...
Life is about learning lessons. Sometimes people say (or write) things that they think aren't offensive, but are.
Just as with the law, ignorance is no excuse. Even I don't think it's too much to expect people to be able to take a slap on the wrist and carry on.
It's just as reasonable to assume that most users have chosen a screen name and not violated the section of the CoC in question.
No. It's almost certain that many or most of us have violated the "Don't represent businesses or web sites" rule. With the sheer number of sites and businesses out there, it's almost impossible to avoid one with the same or similar name to you. We just have not been blasted for it. 2.6 million hits for Maxperson.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
When so many problems are coming from the CoC being vague, then the vague CoC is the problem. No one is saying that just because the CoC is vague, every instance is going to result in a problem.
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
Not maybe. Unknowns. Unknowns are the issue. How can I avoid what I can't know.
The kicker is that it's relying on you to decide for yourself whether the screen name you come up with, words you use, link you post to, etc...violate these specific, crystal clear criteria.
I get that. The problem is that my idea where the lines are drawn will not be where you would draw the lines and our two line drawings will not line up with ORC #3, whose lines do not mach ORC #1 or ours. It's all so freaking subjective that even if I believe I am good, ORC #1 or #3 might have an issue with it.....or might not.
For example, when you created "Maxperson" were you intending to impersonate anyone or anything? Max Muscle? Max Payne? Max Headroom?
No, but intention has nothing to do with it. Intent cannot be proven from a name, so all the ORCs have to go on is the name and anything that matches up to it on the net or in a business.
I doubt you were. I also doubt ORCs go on missions to look for possible similarities.
I agree. However, if you should report me for it, I may very well find my name banned for being similar to some website I've never heard of.
It's almost certain that many or most of us have violated the "Don't represent businesses or web sites" rule.
I doubt more than a handful of people have done that in the entire ten years I've been on the Boards.
I may very well find my name banned for being similar to some website I've never heard of.
Either your understanding of the term "represent" is incorrect or you are inappropriately expanding it to support your argument. I have seen you argue quite intelligently, which leads me to believe the former is not the case.
Feigning confusion, or even identifying possible sources of confusion, is not the same as confusion.
It's almost certain that many or most of us have violated the "Don't represent businesses or web sites" rule.
I doubt more than a handful of people have done that in the entire ten years I've been on the Boards.I may very well find my name banned for being similar to some website I've never heard of.
Either your understanding of the term "represent" is incorrect or you are inappropriately expanding it to support your argument. I have seen you argue quite intelligently, which leads me to believe the former is not the case.
Feigning confusion, or even identifying possible sources of confusion, is not the same as confusion.
Since WoTC can never KNOW our intent when we choose a name, they cannot KNOW if we represent a site or not, so all they have to go on for that portion of the CoC is our name. So either they ban people for that portion of the CoC based on nothing but a name, or they never ban people for it at all and it should just be deleted from the CoC. The only other option is if someone tell WoTC, "I violated it." and I doubt that happens at all.
Since WoTC can never KNOW our intent when we choose a name, they cannot KNOW if we represent a site or not, so all they have to go on for that portion of the CoC is our name. So either they ban people for that portion of the CoC based on nothing but a name, or they never ban people for it at all and it should just be deleted from the CoC. The only other option is if someone tell WoTC, "I violated it." and I doubt that happens at all.
Well, another possiblity could be: WotC doesn't go looking for impersonation violations unless someone hits the report button. Then they look at the content of the complaint, the user history for the owner of the screen name, as well as any links or clues in their sig.
Your argument seems to be that with so many website, company and personal names out there, as well as the natural changes wrought in language usage over time that produce slang terms, it's improbable for most users to have picked a unique, non-offensive, disimilar-to-anything-else-in-the-world screen name.
This, you conclude, means most users are in violation of the CoC.
Following your logic, that section of the CoC is vague and impossible to administer, so it should be deleted because users can't follow it to the letter. After all, several million Google hits can't be wrong, right?
What I'm saying is that there are thousands of users who have managed to surmount your logic problem and successfully select a screen name, Google hits be damned.
Seeker's experience informs him that less than a handful of all these users have run afoul of the section of the CoC we're discussing. I've never known anyone to have their SN modified and I've been here in one form or another as long as he has.
So while I accept it's possible that many users could be in active violation of the Code of Conduct even as I write this, and without those users even knowing it, the fact is these people are not getting punished for it.
Again: possibility does not result in a problem.
Thus, the answer to your question, "How can I avoid what I can't know?" is this: pick a screen name.
If it doesn't sound offensive to you or like any corporation, you're probably going to be OK.
But if you are unintentionally copying an already used name, or have a name that sounds similar to obscure slang, you're still in the clear because it's highly unlikely you'll be reported by anybody
And if yours is one of the very, very few that is reported and found to be in violation, just change your name and accept the slap on the wrist. It's only a screen name, after all.
That to me seems like a far better solution then deleting an entire section of the Code of Conduct.
Note: this is all in my opinion of course. I know a lot of people hang a lot of weight, self esteem and value on their Screen Names and who take offense at even the smallest action against them by the moderators.
Well, another possiblity could be: WotC doesn't go looking for impersonation violations unless someone hits the report button. Then they look at the content of the complaint, the user history for the owner of the screen name, as well as any links or clues in their sig.
They don't go looking before a complaint.
Your argument seems to be that with so many website, company and personal names out there, as well as the natural changes wrought in language usage over time that produce slang terms, it's improbable for most users to have picked a unique, non-offensive, disimilar-to-anything-else-in-the-world screen name.
This, you conclude, means most users are in violation of the CoC.
Correct.
Following your logic, that section of the CoC is vague and impossible to administer, so it should be deleted because users can't follow it to the letter. After all, several million Google hits can't be wrong, right?
Not quite. It should be deleted because it is useless. Short of admission by the user, there is no way to know if a name is representative or not.
What I'm saying is that there are thousands of users who have managed to surmount your logic problem and successfully select a screen name, Google hits be damned.
Incorrect. There are thousands of users who have not suffered a complaint and/or had the ORCs determine that they could not prove that the name was truly representative of a company or web site. This does not mean that they have avoided the problem. The problem exists.
Thus, the answer to your question, "How can I avoid what I can't know?" is this: pick a screen name.
If it doesn't sound offensive to you or like any corporation, you're probably going to be OK.
But if you are unintentionally copying an already used name, or have a name that sounds similar to obscure slang, you're still in the clear because it's highly unlikely you'll be reported by anybody
And if yours is one of the very, very few that is reported and found to be in violation, just change your name and accept the slap on the wrist. It's only a screen name, after all.
And we finally get to the major issue. "Probably okay" is not good enough. I and many others routinely suffer moderation and banning because of things were "probably okay"
I have been banned probably 15 times since I started here. For 4 or 5 of those, I earned it. I knew what I was doing crossed lines, but I was angry and when I was banned I sucked it up. For 8-9 of those, I was caught completely off guard. When I was told the reason for the banning, I argued it and said that it wasn't and why it wasn't and was told by customer service that the ORCs had leeway to determine what was or was not an offense. Basically, I had to suffer being banned due entirely to someone elses differing subjective interpretation of a vague rule. That was not at all acceptable. 2 times I was banned by something that was waaaaaaaaay off base. I fought those tooth and nail, not accepting the canned response from customer service and got those bans overturned.
I have had countless posts moderated. Probably 20% of the time I can see why they were modded. This includes posts modded because they quoted posts that were themselves moderated. The remaining 80% fall into the subjective interpretation issues I have with the CoC. However, since I was not banned for them, I never really cared enough to complain about it to customer service.
That to me seems like a far better solution then deleting an entire section of the Code of Conduct.
If it's useless, axe it.
Note: this is all in my opinion of course. I know a lot of people hang a lot of weight, self esteem and value on their Screen Names and who take offense at even the smallest action against them by the moderators.
I hang a lot of weight on my screen name, but not any self esteem. I am not my screen name. However, I have used it or a close variation of it since 1996 or so, so I've grown rather fond of it.
Following your logic, that section of the CoC is vague and impossible to administer, so it should be deleted because users can't follow it to the letter. After all, several million Google hits can't be wrong, right?
(snip) Short of admission by the user, there is no way to know if a name is representative or not.
Well, you said yourself people could already be in violation by unknowingly creating user names that match already existing people/corporations/etc...
If you'r already in violation, doesn't that make determining the user's intent a moot point?
***
With that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation.
It seems to me like you're hanging your hat on too slim a hook, Maxperson. However, I can appreciate what it's like to be frustrated with the ORCs and the CoC, so I wish you the best in getting things ironed out.
Pleasure talking to you.
That's impossible. There is always—always—going to be a level of subjectivity.
That subjectivity is something that's literally not going to go away.
I would respectfully suggest that if this is unnacceptable to you, then start your own forum as so many others have done and write the rules yourself.
Well, like many of us have said, we know there is going to be a level of subjectivity. But Trevor insists that they do their job without any bias or objectivity.
It's just not possible. But then Trevor admits that mistakes do get made. And he's willing to listen at least.
I haven't been paying too much attention to this particular thread, but I believe I said they are as subjective and unbiased as possible. If not, please let me know where I posted otherwise so I can address that.
Trevor/Other WoTC staff members:
Would you mind allowing an exception to the OTT's "No D&D Talk" rule for Play by Post roleplaying threads?
Definitely a reasonable request and I think that would be awesome. Might I make a counter-suggestion of creating a group whose sole purpose is the play-by-posting. There are already quite a few of those going, and we could put a link in one of the stickied OTT threads about it.
Following your logic, that section of the CoC is vague and impossible to administer, so it should be deleted because users can't follow it to the letter. After all, several million Google hits can't be wrong, right?
(snip) Short of admission by the user, there is no way to know if a name is representative or not.
Well, you said yourself people could already be in violation by unknowingly creating user names that match already existing people/corporations/etc...
If you'r already in violation, doesn't that make determining the user's intent a moot point?
***
With that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation.
It seems to me like you're hanging your hat on too slim a hook, Maxperson. However, I can appreciate what it's like to be frustrated with the ORCs and the CoC, so I wish you the best in getting things ironed out.
Pleasure talking to you.
That's fine, but the whole argument about "representation" is irrelevant. My argument is that the vague CoC results in many moderations/bannings for things that are "probably okay." Those are facts. They happen all the time. It has happened to me about 2/3 of the time and to many others I know on these forums. When threads such as these come up, many that I don't know say how they do not like the moderation here and very, very few say that they like it.
However, just because people don't post in this thread saying that they don't have a problem with the moderation does not mean that they actually do. The people that don't have a problem in the moderation of the forums are more than likely to *not* post in a thread like this, whereas people that do have a problem *are* more likely to do so.
This is because uncertainity doesn't always produce problems.
When it does, you'll find those problems are few.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
You've obviously never been to the Tavern. According to Trevor, politics and religion are banned (but only from there) because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars. Because several have in the past. Then again, several have not, but were locked/deleted anyway... just because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars.
Again, vagaries and inconsistency.
@Maxperson - I have no problems with the moderation at all. There are times when I report something as against the CoC and the ORCs agree with me. There are times when they don't. *shrug*
I'd be willing to bet that the former occurs way more often than the latter, am I right?
Whereas a single post can be reported ~7 times by ~7 different people, and nothing happens for over 2 weeks, and even then it requires bringing it to Trevor's personal attention.
This is because uncertainity doesn't always produce problems.
When it does, you'll find those problems are few.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
You've obviously never been to the Tavern. According to Trevor, politics and religion are banned (but only from there) because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars. Because several have in the past. Then again, several have not, but were locked/deleted anyway... just because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars.
Again, vagaries and inconsistency.
Politics and religion are banned from *every* forum on the WotC site because the overwhelming majority of the time they end up in flamewars with multiple warnings/bans handed out.
@Maxperson - I have no problems with the moderation at all. There are times when I report something as against the CoC and the ORCs agree with me. There are times when they don't. *shrug*
I'd be willing to bet that the former occurs way more often than the latter, am I right?
Whereas a single post can be reported ~7 times by ~7 different people, and nothing happens for over 2 weeks, and even then it requires bringing it to Trevor's personal attention.
Well, yeah, more often than not anything I report gets acted on. That may have to do with the fact that my reports are often multi-paragraph submissions. Unless it is something that is blindingly obvious like "The first paragraph calls everyone who disagrees with him brain-damaged retards", I *always* copy/paste the offending section and provide an explanation of why I think it goes against the CoC.
Edit to add - There are also time when I look at a post, think that there is no way that this doesn't brek the CC, and it stays.
*shrug*
Well, yeah, more often than not anything I report gets acted on. That may have to do with the fact that my reports are often multi-paragraph submissions. Unless it is something that is blindingly obvious like "The first paragraph calls everyone who disagrees with him brain-damaged retards", I *always* copy/paste the offending section and provide an explanation of why I think it goes against the CoC.
Edit to add - There are also time when I look at a post, think that there is no way that this doesn't brek the CC, and it stays.
*shrug*
That sounds like good advice, thanks.
This is because uncertainity doesn't always produce problems.
When it does, you'll find those problems are few.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
You've obviously never been to the Tavern. According to Trevor, politics and religion are banned (but only from there) because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars. Because several have in the past. Then again, several have not, but were locked/deleted anyway... just because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars.
Again, vagaries and inconsistency.
Politics and religion are banned from *every* forum on the WotC site because the overwhelming majority of the time they end up in flamewars with multiple warnings/bans handed out.
Technically, no they are not. Nowhere in the CoC does it state or even imply that either of those two topics are not okay. Only in a couple of threads in the OTT and maybe the Rec Room.
@Maxperson - I have no problems with the moderation at all. There are times when I report something as against the CoC and the ORCs agree with me. There are times when they don't. *shrug*
I'd be willing to bet that the former occurs way more often than the latter, am I right?
Whereas a single post can be reported ~7 times by ~7 different people, and nothing happens for over 2 weeks, and even then it requires bringing it to Trevor's personal attention.
Well, yeah, more often than not anything I report gets acted on. That may have to do with the fact that my reports are often multi-paragraph submissions. Unless it is something that is blindingly obvious like "The first paragraph calls everyone who disagrees with him brain-damaged retards", I *always* copy/paste the offending section and provide an explanation of why I think it goes against the CoC.
That was done in the example I provided. Again, multiple times. And it was almost exactly what you used as your example. I won't go into details since the issue has been resolved, but it's pretty clear that there are different standards used applying the CoC.
Well, yeah, more often than not anything I report gets acted on. That may have to do with the fact that my reports are often multi-paragraph submissions. Unless it is something that is blindingly obvious like "The first paragraph calls everyone who disagrees with him brain-damaged retards", I *always* copy/paste the offending section and provide an explanation of why I think it goes against the CoC.
Edit to add - There are also time when I look at a post, think that there is no way that this doesn't brek the CC, and it stays.
*shrug*
That sounds like good advice, thanks.
It takes a bit longer, but if the post is vague, or something that is trolling *in the context of the thread* then it makes the job for the ORCs a lot easier.
This is because uncertainity doesn't always produce problems.
When it does, you'll find those problems are few.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
You've obviously never been to the Tavern. According to Trevor, politics and religion are banned (but only from there) because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars. Because several have in the past. Then again, several have not, but were locked/deleted anyway... just because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars.
Again, vagaries and inconsistency.
Politics and religion are banned from *every* forum on the WotC site because the overwhelming majority of the time they end up in flamewars with multiple warnings/bans handed out.
Technically, no they are not. Nowhere in the CoC does it state or even imply that either of those two topics are not okay. Only in a couple of threads in the OTT and maybe the Rec Room.
A political/religious thread (that is not discussing in-game things) that is posted on the forums will get locked if it is reported. It would be nice if the environment on *any* forum (not just the WotC forums) was such that discussions about a political or religious topic could be had without a flame-war erupting, but it is unlikely to happen.
The result of the threads would end up with numerous people ending up being cited for breaking Section 3 of the CoC (trolling, baiting, religious slurs, etc). As a result, discussion topics of that sort are verboten. I asked for it to be specifically mentioned in "The mysteries of the Off Topic Tavern - Explained" thread because of the idea that often arises with respect to the OTT that it is for the discussion of anything that isn't D&D.
It is the same way that, for the longest time, "katanas vs longswords" was banned, because threads on that topic *always* ended up being locked and numerous warns/bans issued.
This is because uncertainity doesn't always produce problems.
When it does, you'll find those problems are few.
"It could possibly" and "maybe" and "might" aren't the same as, "this is a problem, it's on-going, here's proof of the problem's existence and here's the section of the CoC that keeps causing problems."
In all honesty, when I read your CoC breakdown (thank you for posting it, btw) I read lots of maybe.
You've obviously never been to the Tavern. According to Trevor, politics and religion are banned (but only from there) because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars. Because several have in the past. Then again, several have not, but were locked/deleted anyway... just because they "possibly" "maybe" "might" become flamewars.
Again, vagaries and inconsistency.
Politics and religion are banned from *every* forum on the WotC site because the overwhelming majority of the time they end up in flamewars with multiple warnings/bans handed out.
Technically, no they are not. Nowhere in the CoC does it state or even imply that either of those two topics are not okay. Only in a couple of threads in the OTT and maybe the Rec Room.@Maxperson - I have no problems with the moderation at all. There are times when I report something as against the CoC and the ORCs agree with me. There are times when they don't. *shrug*
I'd be willing to bet that the former occurs way more often than the latter, am I right?
Whereas a single post can be reported ~7 times by ~7 different people, and nothing happens for over 2 weeks, and even then it requires bringing it to Trevor's personal attention.
Well, yeah, more often than not anything I report gets acted on. That may have to do with the fact that my reports are often multi-paragraph submissions. Unless it is something that is blindingly obvious like "The first paragraph calls everyone who disagrees with him brain-damaged retards", I *always* copy/paste the offending section and provide an explanation of why I think it goes against the CoC.
That was done in the example I provided. Again, multiple times. And it was almost exactly what you used as your example. I won't go into details since the issue has been resolved, but it's pretty clear that there are different standards used applying the CoC.
That's because political and religious discussions are off topic for every other forum area - I didn't think I should have to remind people in those forums of that.
However, just because people don't post in this thread saying that they don't have a problem with the moderation does not mean that they actually do. The people that don't have a problem in the moderation of the forums are more than likely to *not* post in a thread like this, whereas people that do have a problem *are* more likely to do so.
I think the moderators do a good job on the forums I post on. They almost always have moderated the things I have reported that I thought needed to be locked or moderated and I don't remember seeing any moderated comments or locked threads that looked like they shouldn't have been modded.
I don't visit OTT or Astrids so I can't comment on what goes on there, but for the rest of the forums they do a good job the vast majority of the time from what I can tell.
One thing that I think would be nice if we got a bit of input on how much copyrighted WOTC material is ok with us putting up. I am assuming WOTC art is ok since it is up everywhere including threads that WOTC staff visit and I have never seen it modded, even though you need a DDI subscription now to download it.
A little more guidance on just how much information on things like powers and feats it is ok to put in a post would be nice. Are full reprints of powers ok if it is something like the templar powers that were subject to errata since we can download those without any restriction in the update documents anyway? I always worry a little that I may post too much information when I am writing a guide and think I end up posting less than WoTC is ok with.
But i don't know if its tolerated everywhere.
The safest best is providing a link to the Compendium entry, if possible.
Which is good idea but doesn't really work if people without access to the Compendium are participating in the discussion (or the poster doesn't have Compendium access).
As a quick guideline, as long as you don't give enough of the content so that someone without DDI access or without the book would be able to use it as-is, I *think* that it would be all right.
The compendium links are fine as long you are just talking about one or two links. Handbooks could easily need over a thousand links.