Hopefully we can use this to shine some light on the particular issue for the whole community, and alleviate some of the confusion of what is/isn't okay to do in the forums. And in the cases when a mistake has been made, we can address that too.
Note: Normally talking about specific conduct issues in a forum post is something we would take conduct action on. We've learned from experience that letting people talk about specific conduct issues often leads to further conduct violations. This thread is an exception to the rule, and an experiment. If we can keep the thread on topic and constructive, then we'll keep it open.
Shortly after that I received a one day ban for this post. I followed up with both emails and a phone call, and was told the ban would not be reversed, because responding to a troll is a violation of the CoC.
So, CS acknowledge the person was trolling and baiting me, yet they never got a ban for that, and kept on posting that day.
I don't understand how the word "Yeah" to someone that CS acknowledges was trolling, flaming and baiting is a CoC.
I mentioned files that I believed were still available for download from the WotC site. Now I don't know if the link is directly available from the site (I downloaded some of them a while ago and haven't looked since). There are some other sites I've run across that have these links posted and I'm assuming they still work. But again, these are links to files on the WotC website, the files were not being hosted on a torrent or other third party site. I made mention that I believed that someone could download the files but they'd have to look for the links themselves to verify that.
I was modded for "advocating illegal activity". The other individual did the exact same thing except he linked to a website that had all the links consolidated, but his moderation was for "advertising" (actually I believe originally there was no mention of the violation, another poster pointed out that it was vague and was promptly banned, then the post was edited to say advertising). So already I'm confused that within a short span of time two of us get modded for the same thing but apparently we violated different sections. I emailed CS and got a reply that WotC no longer offers files for download.
Well ok, if the files aren't available for download, then I shouldn't have been violating anything because if the files aren't available, then the links just won't work, or the individual I was attempting to help just won't find any links (since I mentioned that he'd have to search for them himself as I didn't have them available). If the files are available for download but aren't intended to be, that's hardly my fault, take that up with the IT department. If even mentioning the files is against the CoC, well where is that written? I hate to sound like a rules lawyer here, but it doesn't exactly fall into the realm of common sense.
On a side note, hopefully this thread lasts long enough for some of the other users to finish out their bans and tell their stories.
Slightly unrelated, but when the software glitches and bans get accidentally extended, what can we do to get that fixed? Contacting CS is not possible with a suspended account but making an alt account to circumvent a ban is, as mentioned, a ToS violation.
This is another area where we often get brushed off. I've mentioned that a ban wasn't lifted on time and was told I can't expect it to end at 1201 that day. CS seemed to ignore the fact that it was about 2300 when I sent that email. The other thing is that sometimes we don't get any response until the next day and then its "what are you talking about, you're account is working fine". Well of course it is now. If you don't answer me within the hour, hey stuff happens, I can accept that, but don't make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about just because it took you that long to get back to me.
I'll be back in as soon as I can, but I didn't want you guys to feel ignored.
This is another area where we often get brushed off. I've mentioned that a ban wasn't lifted on time and was told I can't expect it to end at 1201 that day. CS seemed to ignore the fact that it was about 2300 when I sent that email. The other thing is that sometimes we don't get any response until the next day and then its "what are you talking about, you're account is working fine". Well of course it is now. If you don't answer me within the hour, hey stuff happens, I can accept that, but don't make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about just because it took you that long to get back to me.
I've actually had one day temps go for three - fully out of the 'well, you can't expect it immediately' realm. And I made an alt acct and contacted CS and PMd some VCLs about it, too (one time I made a thread here but got warned cuz I basically told people how to circumvent bans by explaining what I had to do). But yeah, that's a sticky one I'd like cleared up as much as possible.
When I asked about it, I was told it was because the euphimism I used was the initials of the word (Also the initials for Bart Simpson, so you can know the initials I used). This still makes no sense to me as that particular phrasing is used as a non-vulgar way to get the same point as the actual word all the time. I hardly find that on the same level as doing something weird with the spelling in an intentional attempt to get past the profanity filters.
Hello Jane Doe,
The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section three, Baiting. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...> here . The violating content can be found below.
Posted by Plaguescarred: "Too bad i'll still take Jon Doe's words before yours
"As a result, this account will no longer be able to access Wizards Community until 8/14/11. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
I was banned rather than my post simply being modded that in my opinion would have suffice.
When i contacted CS i never got an answer even though i indicated i wanted a response.
Now it may or may not be a form of baiting and if it is it must be very small. Trevor you say things are evaluated on the severity of the violation and the track record of the Poster ? Never got banned before. Never got modded for trolling or baiting before.
Then why i did not simply got modded rather than being banned ?
Slightly unrelated, but when the software glitches and bans get accidentally extended, what can we do to get that fixed? Contacting CS is not possible with a suspended account but making an alt account to circumvent a ban is, as mentioned, a ToS violation.
This happens to many people more then once or twice.
Also, you need to fix either ability to say logged in and still get to the contact us pages to email you.
I recently called CS, about this and I was told that when you check the Remember Me box at login, it effects your cookie, which then effects your ability to use those pages, and the results being that you have to clear all your cookies, log out and log in.
To me it seems like it's an issue on your end. One that has been around for ever. It's very frustrating. Fix it or remove the ability to stay logged in.
Yet I've seen threads that are days and weeks old suddenly get edited or deleted, and bans handed out. If a post is days old, handing out a ban for it seems like overly harsh.
It happened to me. On top of that, there wasn't anything in the post that I could see as against the CoC. I was agreeing with another poster. But it was considered trolling.
Being able to go back over posts that are days and weeks old, to find something to ban the person over, is simply wrong.
Here's a question, though: what about all the posts that get modded and/or deleted with no explanation and no e-mail? Are those "warnings" that get backlogged? And if they aren't warnable offenses, why were they modded and/or deleted?
After trying to honestly respond to another poster who kept getting more outlandish with his responses, I simply replied "yeah" and let it go.
Shortly after that I received a one day ban for this post. I followed up with both emails and a phone call, and was told the ban would not be reversed, because responding to a troll is a violation of the CoC.
So, CS acknowledge the person was trolling and baiting me, yet they never got a ban for that, and kept on posting that day.
I don't understand how the word "Yeah" to someone that CS acknowledges was trolling, flaming and baiting is a CoC.
So we did a quick search and the only thing I found close to this in your history is that you were actioned for replying with "Yawn" to a post. The yawn is pretty insulting/inflamatory, because you're very heavily implying that the post was boring and useless. If you're talking about something else, I'll need you to go into the "my stuff" section on the help site and find the incident for me and give me the incident number.
A few questions.
If I get a warning by email from CS, can I copy/pasta the email? Should I just include the incident number?
What if I am banned? I know making puppet accounds are against the CoC, but what if I feel I was short changed and CS is not answering my emails while the ban is in affect?
The puppet account question also raises another. When CS answers do not satisfy us, we are asked to write directly to CS via the WotC website. To do that you need to have an active account. So to write to CS you need break the CoC and make a puppet account. How can we handle this?
Thank you good sir for your patience handling us.
So to make this one easy - talking about a specific conduct violation or the ban/warn/conduct punishment that comes after in any thread other than this one is considered a disruption, off-topic, and a conduct violation. So in other threads, don't do any of the stuff you mentioned
In this thread, for your examples you can provide me the incident number, which you can look up in your "my stuff" tab on the help system, and anything else about the conduct issue except for the names of any people involved, or any specifically offensive words/material that would set off the conduct alarm. Slightly unrelated, but when the software glitches and bans get accidentally extended, what can we do to get that fixed? Contacting CS is not possible with a suspended account but making an alt account to circumvent a ban is, as mentioned, a ToS violation.
Actually, it should be possible to contact CS, even after you've been banned. Banning an account from the forums should not in any way stop you from logging into the help system and sending a question or response to customer service. Just log in through the help site and not the community site and you should be fine. That said - if someone is banned at some point and and they can't seem to log in to the help system, please take some screen shots of the error you get when you try, and once the ban lifts, email them in through the help system and PM me so we can look into it.
Here's one that affected both myself (I got warned but not banned) and another user (I'll leave out names unless you request them but basically he got banned for almost the exact same thing).
I mentioned files that I believed were still available for download from the WotC site. Now I don't know if the link is directly available from the site (I downloaded some of them a while ago and haven't looked since). There are some other sites I've run across that have these links posted and I'm assuming they still work. But again, these are links to files on the WotC website, the files were not being hosted on a torrent or other third party site. I made mention that I believed that someone could download the files but they'd have to look for the links themselves to verify that.
I was modded for "advocating illegal activity". The other individual did the exact same thing except he linked to a website that had all the links consolidated, but his moderation was for "advertising" (actually I believe originally there was no mention of the violation, another poster pointed out that it was vague and was promptly banned, then the post was edited to say advertising). So already I'm confused that within a short span of time two of us get modded for the same thing but apparently we violated different sections. I emailed CS and got a reply that WotC no longer offers files for download.
Well ok, if the files aren't available for download, then I shouldn't have been violating anything because if the files aren't available, then the links just won't work, or the individual I was attempting to help just won't find any links (since I mentioned that he'd have to search for them himself as I didn't have them available). If the files are available for download but aren't intended to be, that's hardly my fault, take that up with the IT department. If even mentioning the files is against the CoC, well where is that written? I hate to sound like a rules lawyer here, but it doesn't exactly fall into the realm of common sense.
On a side note, hopefully this thread lasts long enough for some of the other users to finish out their bans and tell their stories.
Back when we reorged the website, the intention was to pull those files down not just hide them. That's the way it was communicated and I think this is a holdover from that. So the link to another site, that had the links back to the old file archive on our site was okay, but the ORC was following the procedure that we laid down inside so blame me for that one. Sorry for the short vacation on that one.
You didn't do this, but since we're using this to clarify some things, I want to remind people - if you provide a link to a site that does have links to illegal downloads, even if it's not your intention that people use them, you should be prepared to get a vacation.
This also happened yesterday; [Incident: 110822-000136]
Now I fully own this one. I should not have said this but the actions taken by CS were more leaniant than in other instances. I've said things far less vocal and been banned for it. I'd love to give examplae of lesser ofenses but I try to keep my e-mail inbox clean.
I can say this. In ten years prior to this year I cannot ever taking more than a handful of bans, this year something has changed and it's not my language.
So I won't repeat what you said, but you knew it was wrong. So next time, just don't do that okay Thunder? There's a pretty long disconnect from brain, to fingers, to keyboard, to sending something to the forums.
As for noticing more reports/actions in the last year, that's easy. The CM grew and we spend a lot of time on the forums. We're not out there looking for violations, but when we come across the blatant ones, we report them. The main forums are also getting more users as time goes on as well, and if they're being properly educated in reporting things that break the code of conduct, then people who break the rules are more likely to get caught.
Slightly unrelated, but when the software glitches and bans get accidentally extended, what can we do to get that fixed? Contacting CS is not possible with a suspended account but making an alt account to circumvent a ban is, as mentioned, a ToS violation.
This is another area where we often get brushed off. I've mentioned that a ban wasn't lifted on time and was told I can't expect it to end at 1201 that day. CS seemed to ignore the fact that it was about 2300 when I sent that email. The other thing is that sometimes we don't get any response until the next day and then its "what are you talking about, you're account is working fine". Well of course it is now. If you don't answer me within the hour, hey stuff happens, I can accept that, but don't make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about just because it took you that long to get back to me.
Let's say that you're banned until September 14th. Calling or writing in about getting the ban lifted on the 14th isn't going to do any good because the ban could throughout the day. Now if it's the 15th, and you still find yourself banned, reply to email that was oringally sent about the ban, or go into your my stuff tab and reply there. Again, being banned from the community forums doesn't block you from contacting us through the help system. If there's an issue, we'll respond to it as quickly as we can and get it fixed up.
I think in the specific case you're talking about bone (and seroiusly guys, the multiple accounts give me a headache and aren't allowed, so if you've got one, kill it before I have to go hunting) the account was reactivated but there might have been some residual issue preventing login - likely something with cookie's or the cache.
I was recently given a warning for "masking" profanity. As I understand it, "masking" is something like spelling a cuss word in leet or spelling it in a weird way (i.e. spelling that most infamous of 'F' words with a "Ph" instead) in order to sneak past the profanity filters. I did none of those things, I used a common non-vulgar euphimism for the word that is used quite often in everyday speech and that very few people I know of would be embarrased to use in front of their kids or grandmas. About on par, AFAIC, with using 'shoot', 'darn' or 'frack".
When I asked about it, I was told it was because the euphimism I used was the initials of the word (Also the initials for Bart Simpson, so you can know the initials I used). This still makes no sense to me as that particular phrasing is used as a non-vulgar way to get the same point as the actual word all the time. I hardly find that on the same level as doing something weird with the spelling in an intentional attempt to get past the profanity filters.
I can see why this one can be confusing. Masking profanity isn't just about changing the way it looks or sound, abbreviations count as well.
Here's the disclaimer - don't do what I'm about to do, it will get you actioned if reported.
So if you were to use BS it would be just as much a violation as using the full phrase.
I was banned last week for baiting after having said i would take one poster's words over another on a disagreement.
Hello Jane Doe,
The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section three, Baiting. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...> here . The violating content can be found below.
Posted by Plaguescarred: "Too bad i'll still take Jon Doe's words before yours
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access Wizards Community until 8/14/11. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
I was banned rather than my post simply being modded that in my opinion would have suffice.
When i contacted CS i never got an answer even though i indicated i wanted a response.
Now it may or may not be a form of baiting and if it is it must be very small. Trevor you say things are evaluated on the severity of the violation and the track record of the Poster ? Never got banned before. Never got modded for trolling or baiting before.
Then why i did not simply got modded rather than being banned ?
This is similar to the yawn thing I mentioned above, and is a form of directed harassment. We can disagree without getting insulting. As to why a ban instead of a warn plague, I'm not entirely sure, usually it's because of an escalation in activity or because a discussion is pretty far gone. I'll see if I can run down some more info.
This isn't a specific incident, but the time frame in which Orcs act seems to tied to amount of reports a thread or post is getting. In general they seem to react within say a few hours at the longest.
Yet I've seen threads that are days and weeks old suddenly get edited or deleted, and bans handed out. If a post is days old, handing out a ban for it seems like overly harsh.
It happened to me. On top of that, there wasn't anything in the post that I could see as against the CoC. I was agreeing with another poster. But it was considered trolling.
Being able to go back over posts that are days and weeks old, to find something to ban the person over, is simply wrong.
How old a post is doesn't come into play. The forums are forever (until they're not) and for someone reading it the first time, it's new. In general, when something was posted doesn't have any affect on the ban or warn given.
Interesting. I went through my e-mails to check everything that I'd gotten warned and/or banned for, and found nothing too objectionable. A link I once posted was defined as "Hatespeech" when it was clearly satire, but since they also called it "vulgarity", I can't really argue with that.
Here's a question, though: what about all the posts that get modded and/or deleted with no explanation and no e-mail? Are those "warnings" that get backlogged? And if they aren't warnable offenses, why were they modded and/or deleted?
What's "Too objectionable" is wonky - if it breaks the code of conduct, it breaks the code of conduct. As to the rest, when something gets modded we generally leave a note. If not, then it was usually a small edit for continuity (aka keeping things on track, keeping quoted posts clear of reported material) and very rarely for really minor infractions.
In addition to that, we're working on messaging more often when a thread is touched by ORC or CM staff.
ShowHere's one that affected both myself (I got warned but not banned) and another user (I'll leave out names unless you request them but basically he got banned for almost the exact same thing).
I mentioned files that I believed were still available for download from the WotC site. Now I don't know if the link is directly available from the site (I downloaded some of them a while ago and haven't looked since). There are some other sites I've run across that have these links posted and I'm assuming they still work. But again, these are links to files on the WotC website, the files were not being hosted on a torrent or other third party site. I made mention that I believed that someone could download the files but they'd have to look for the links themselves to verify that.
I was modded for "advocating illegal activity". The other individual did the exact same thing except he linked to a website that had all the links consolidated, but his moderation was for "advertising" (actually I believe originally there was no mention of the violation, another poster pointed out that it was vague and was promptly banned, then the post was edited to say advertising). So already I'm confused that within a short span of time two of us get modded for the same thing but apparently we violated different sections. I emailed CS and got a reply that WotC no longer offers files for download.
Well ok, if the files aren't available for download, then I shouldn't have been violating anything because if the files aren't available, then the links just won't work, or the individual I was attempting to help just won't find any links (since I mentioned that he'd have to search for them himself as I didn't have them available). If the files are available for download but aren't intended to be, that's hardly my fault, take that up with the IT department. If even mentioning the files is against the CoC, well where is that written? I hate to sound like a rules lawyer here, but it doesn't exactly fall into the realm of common sense.
On a side note, hopefully this thread lasts long enough for some of the other users to finish out their bans and tell their stories.
This topic is probably one of the bigger spots that made me feel like you guys were inconsistently handing out warnings/bans. In essence, the thread was moderated heavily, but not closed because it was supposed to be an official discussion topic. I remember that one or two users were "trolling" people who were regulars of the forums, some of the regulars took the bait, but only the regulars were banned at the time. I remember reporting one of the trolls consistently; whether it was early in the thread before the regulars got banned or afterwards. After one or two more posts by the trolls, I gave up and quit reporting; and I really haven't reported much in the General Discussion since, because I don't feel like I'm being taken seriously.
I don't understand this and this is probably the bigger area where I feel like you guys CAN'T be enforcing the CoC fairly because both sides were equally responsible, but only one side got banned. And while I can understand mistakes, this was a high profile thread and there were many ORCs and probably a few WoTC employees looking at the topic, so I assume that the many eyes should have caught the mistakes.
After trying to honestly respond to another poster who kept getting more outlandish with his responses, I simply replied "yeah" and let it go.
Shortly after that I received a one day ban for this post. I followed up with both emails and a phone call, and was told the ban would not be reversed, because responding to a troll is a violation of the CoC.
So, CS acknowledge the person was trolling and baiting me, yet they never got a ban for that, and kept on posting that day.
I don't understand how the word "Yeah" to someone that CS acknowledges was trolling, flaming and baiting is a CoC.
So we did a quick search and the only thing I found close to this in your history is that you were actioned for replying with "Yawn" to a post. The yawn is pretty insulting/inflamatory, because you're very heavily implying that the post was boring and useless. If you're talking about something else, I'll need you to go into the "my stuff" section on the help site and find the incident for me and give me the incident number.
Only when I try, I get stuck in a redirect loop, error message. And even though I follow CS directions delete cookies, log out, log in, and all combinations, it doesn't work.
So, frustrating to always be sent to a link that just doesn't work. It's not on my end, since I'm told by CS it's on WoTC's end.
Only when I try, I get stuck in a redirect loop, error message. And even though I follow CS directions delete cookies, log out, log in, and all combinations, it doesn't work.
So, frustrating to always be sent to a link that just doesn't work. It's not on my end, since I'm told by CS it's on WoTC's end.
Post in the thread here and you should, as the O states, be contacted by CS within 48 hours, either within the thread or via email to get your problem resolved.
Only when I try, I get stuck in a redirect loop, error message. And even though I follow CS directions delete cookies, log out, log in, and all combinations, it doesn't work.
So, frustrating to always be sent to a link that just doesn't work. It's not on my end, since I'm told by CS it's on WoTC's end.
Post in the thread here and you should, as the O states, be contacted by CS within 48 hours, either within the thread or via email to get your problem resolved.
Mud, I've done that before. The fix lastes a few weeks. How many times do I have to do that?
There have been to many issues with my account, all on WoTCs end. They have had to redo my account, switch it over to a new account, delete it and make a new one, which they would change to match this one and carry my DDi account over.
Honestly, it gets old, and the problems never go away. And I'm always told it's on WoTC's end.
So again I will post in that thread, and again the problem won't go away.
This is similar to the yawn thing I mentioned above, and is a form of directed harassment. We can disagree without getting insulting. As to why a ban instead of a warn plague, I'm not entirely sure, usually it's because of an escalation in activity or because a discussion is pretty far gone. I'll see if I can run down some more info.
So the smiley got me in trouble ...
Thanks Trevor
Only when I try, I get stuck in a redirect loop, error message. And even though I follow CS directions delete cookies, log out, log in, and all combinations, it doesn't work.
So, frustrating to always be sent to a link that just doesn't work. It's not on my end, since I'm told by CS it's on WoTC's end.
Post in the thread here and you should, as the O states, be contacted by CS within 48 hours, either within the thread or via email to get your problem resolved.
Mud, I've done that before. The fix lastes a few weeks. How many times do I have to do that?
There has been issues to many WoTC end issues with my accounts. They have had to redo my account, switch it over to a new account, delete it and make a new one, which they would change to match this one and carry my DDi account over.
Honestly, it gets old, and the problems never go away. And I'm always told it's on WoTC's end.
So again I will post in that thread, and again the problem won't go away.
You have to do it multiple times?? That is very weird. I have never heard of anyone having to do it more than once. When you post in that thread, please make sure that you let them know that whatever they are doing to your account, that it isn't catching.
Only when I try, I get stuck in a redirect loop, error message. And even though I follow CS directions delete cookies, log out, log in, and all combinations, it doesn't work.
So, frustrating to always be sent to a link that just doesn't work. It's not on my end, since I'm told by CS it's on WoTC's end.
Post in the thread here and you should, as the O states, be contacted by CS within 48 hours, either within the thread or via email to get your problem resolved.
Mud, I've done that before. The fix lastes a few weeks. How many times do I have to do that?
There has been issues to many WoTC end issues with my accounts. They have had to redo my account, switch it over to a new account, delete it and make a new one, which they would change to match this one and carry my DDi account over.
Honestly, it gets old, and the problems never go away. And I'm always told it's on WoTC's end.
So again I will post in that thread, and again the problem won't go away.
You have to do it multiple times?? That is very weird. I have never heard of anyone having to do it more than once. When you post in that thread, please make sure that you let them know that whatever they are doing to your account, that it isn't catching.
You can look back and see I have posted. And yes, I mentioned that I've done this before and it doesn't take.
Hence, you can seem my skepticism with WoTC's system of recording and automation. Notices' don't always get sent. The website doesn't always work right. I can't find the incedent you are talking about.
This is similar to the yawn thing I mentioned above, and is a form of directed harassment.
Can we have it removed then if its susceptible of being associated with harrassement ?
Chiming in with a bit of agreement on this one.
I would *only* use the
smiley to represent my becoming bored or less-than-impressed (not counting its use in this post to represent the smiley itself).Some of the smilies have pretty much only one intended meaning and a number of smileys that are intentionally "disrespectful". Perhaps examing the smiley list and removing from use those that have such nefarious purpose would decrease some of the burden on the ORCs?
A few questions.
If I get a warning by email from CS, can I copy/pasta the email? Should I just include the incident number?
What if I am banned? I know making puppet accounds are against the CoC, but what if I feel I was short changed and CS is not answering my emails while the ban is in affect?
The puppet account question also raises another. When CS answers do not satisfy us, we are asked to write directly to CS via the WotC website. To do that you need to have an active account. So to write to CS you need break the CoC and make a puppet account. How can we handle this?
Thank you good sir for your patience handling us.
You should still be able to contact CS through the Ask a Question (or My Stuff if you already have a question submitted. Just reply to that, and it reopens it.)
A few questions.
If I get a warning by email from CS, can I copy/pasta the email? Should I just include the incident number?
What if I am banned? I know making puppet accounds are against the CoC, but what if I feel I was short changed and CS is not answering my emails while the ban is in affect?
The puppet account question also raises another. When CS answers do not satisfy us, we are asked to write directly to CS via the WotC website. To do that you need to have an active account. So to write to CS you need break the CoC and make a puppet account. How can we handle this?
Thank you good sir for your patience handling us.
You should still be able to contact CS through the Ask a Question (or My Stuff if you already have a question submitted. Just reply to that, and it reopens it.)
And what if that option is continually broken for you? Where they ask you to login, you do, and you get stuck in a redirect loop, and you've already posted in that one thread to get that fixed, and it doesn't seem to stick, and you call customer service and they say delete your cookies and login and out and you do, and it still doesn't work, and then you are told, they can't do anything over the phone, and by that point you really start to think it's like the movie Brazil, and all done on purpose.
So the smiley got me in trouble ...
Can we have it removed then if its susceptible of being associated with harrassement ?
Removing a tool because improper or careless use of it can get you into trouble is something I'd disagree with in the strongest possible terms. If a smiley has significant legitimate applications, it should not be removed, for the same reason that words like 'member', 'wet', or 'suck' aren't censored despite having uses that will definitely get you into trouble.
While I may be biased, as I'm the person who created the existing smiley list (the good one, not the ugly one), I would argue that legitimate uses exist for all of them. If anything, I now feel that I was a bit too restrictive when I created the list initially--there's at least two smilies I initially dismissed from consideration due to their possible negative connotations that I now feel could be used constructively and should be included--one of them already has been, and the only reason I haven't submitted the other is my recent laptop crash.
Smilies should not be limited to expressing only positive or neutral emotions; we as humans are able to express a full range of emotions both positive and negative, and our ability to express those emotions should not be artificially constrained by a lack of available tools. Moderation should be about restricting behavior, not expression; restricting expression only wallpapers over the underlying behavioral problem, and it frustrates users who would use that form of expression legitimately. Users who would misuse a form of expression when behaving poorly will not be silenced by cutting off that form of expression; they'll simply find a new form of expression to misuse. Only when a form of expression has no legitimate usage should it ever be restricted.
Certainly not done on purpose. I do have an idea on what might (might, I could be wrong) be the issue, but don't want to step on any official authority. I'll pass it on up.
And I appreciate that.
However, I'm also thinking, this is like 4 years ago, when they had to rebuild my account three times, and kept having to bump it up, and I had to switch emails accounts so many times, I had to use my spouses account, because I had gone through my own email accounts, and it was that or make an account just for this. Which I kind of didn't want to do.
So, I have some scepticism.
Here's a question, though: what about all the posts that get modded and/or deleted with no explanation and no e-mail? Are those "warnings" that get backlogged? And if they aren't warnable offenses, why were they modded and/or deleted?
That is where I have a lot of heartache too. We see posts that are modded or deleted or threads that are locked or deleted and no reason is given. How do we address it with CS without any information? And if we comment on it, we get banned. My most recent ban was for pointing out the vagueness of an ORC's post (it said that the thread was modded "for violating the Code of Conduct" but we had no idea what part it he was violating). Yes my reply had a bit of snark to it but we were seriously confused as to how the CoC was violated (we have since had that particular issue clarified). I noticed that he did go back and edit his post after banning me. I've also had a post modded without explanation or receiving an email and I even tried to PM the ORC that modded it and never received a response. So I guess my question is that in these circumstances, what can we do? I doubt emailing CS without an incident number (and in some cases without even a name) would be particularly helpful.
Removing a tool because improper or careless use of it can get you into trouble is something I'd disagree with in the strongest possible terms.
I have removed this from my post since i agree with you.
While I may be biased, as I'm the person who created the existing smiley list (the good one, not the ugly one), I would argue that legitimate uses exist for all of them.
ZAMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know I like you, but I have to ask: what kind of legitimate uses exist for
?!While I may be biased, as I'm the person who created the existing smiley list (the good one, not the ugly one), I would argue that legitimate uses exist for all of them.
ZAMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know I like you, but I have to ask: what kind of legitimate uses exist for
let's party?
While I may be biased, as I'm the person who created the existing smiley list (the good one, not the ugly one), I would argue that legitimate uses exist for all of them.
ZAMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know I like you, but I have to ask: what kind of legitimate uses exist for
let's party?
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Then again, E.T. had underage drinking (sorta) and it was rated PG, so I guess it's ok.
While I may be biased, as I'm the person who created the existing smiley list (the good one, not the ugly one), I would argue that legitimate uses exist for all of them.
ZAMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know I like you, but I have to ask: what kind of legitimate uses exist for
let's party?
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Then again, E.T. had underage drinking (sorta) and it was rated PG, so I guess it's ok.
could also be a very good repasentiaton of what happens on the weekends to a number of the Otters
I then responded by asking how I violated section four with details of the infractions under that section and how I did not violate them.
CS then wrote back that some topics where banned to make the forums more friendly.
I then asked them what topics where banned so I would not run across them by accident.
Then they directed my to read the CoC, which it would be clear that I already read by my first response.
I still am not quite sure why that thread was deleted. But I do know a few topics that are banned that are not listed in the CoC, religion and politics.
But I do know a few topics that are banned that are not listed in the CoC, religion and politics.
Easily explainable: It is in a couple of threads in the OTT that politics and religion are banned from the area due to WotC's past experience of those types of threads devolving into flamewars and fishing expeditions (baiting and trolling). Kinda like it's our experience that... ya know what, afetr yesterday, I'm just not going to finish that thought.
This is similar to the yawn thing I mentioned above, and is a form of directed harassment.Can we have it removed then if its susceptible of being associated with harrassement ?
Chiming in with a bit of agreement on this one.
I would *only* use the
Some of the smilies have pretty much only one intended meaning and a number of smileys that are intentionally "disrespectful". Perhaps examing the smiley list and removing from use those that have such nefarious purpose would decrease some of the burden on the ORCs?
I can see the argument here, but I doubt we're going to remove a smiley because it could be used inappropriately.
Example: Drizz't comes on and writes "You know I read through the Neverwinter Campaign Guide and
- it was just boring. It didn't have enough of me in it!"That's a totally fine use of it, and we shouldn't ban the smiling just like we shouldn't ban the phrase "it was boring."
Also, in plagues case it wasn't the smiley exactly, it was the comparing to forum individuals and saying that one was better in a way - and to be honest, this was a super mild infraction and something we might look into changing/being more lenient on in the future.
Here's a question, though: what about all the posts that get modded and/or deleted with no explanation and no e-mail? Are those "warnings" that get backlogged? And if they aren't warnable offenses, why were they modded and/or deleted?
That is where I have a lot of heartache too. We see posts that are modded or deleted or threads that are locked or deleted and no reason is given. How do we address it with CS without any information? And if we comment on it, we get banned. My most recent ban was for pointing out the vagueness of an ORC's post (it said that the thread was modded "for violating the Code of Conduct" but we had no idea what part it he was violating). Yes my reply had a bit of snark to it but we were seriously confused as to how the CoC was violated (we have since had that particular issue clarified). I noticed that he did go back and edit his post after banning me. I've also had a post modded without explanation or receiving an email and I even tried to PM the ORC that modded it and never received a response. So I guess my question is that in these circumstances, what can we do? I doubt emailing CS without an incident number (and in some cases without even a name) would be particularly helpful.
So this thread we're talking in gives us a place to bring up threads/warns that we didn't understand, so hopefully that need is covered (assuming we can keep this experiment going and on topic
)The closing thread thing is also going to be addressed with the CM team taking a more active roll in reviewing and posting in those closed threads after reopening them or deciding to leave them closed.
I did get a mod and warning I do not understand. It started when I started a thread by posting a news article about a crime and included a snarky comment about the stupidity of the action. After that I was moderated for "illegal activity of the code of conduct". Rather that taking the literal interpretion that the CoC committed an illegal act, I concluded that it was referring to a violation of section four.
I then responded by asking how I violated section four with details of the infractions under that section and how I did not violate them.
CS then wrote back that some topics where banned to make the forums more friendly.
I then asked them what topics where banned so I would not run across them by accident.
Then they directed my to read the CoC, which it would be clear that I already read by my first response.
I still am not quite sure why that thread was deleted. But I do know a few topics that are banned that are not listed in the CoC, religion and politics.
I don't have the specifics, but this sounds like the orcs erring on the side of caution after looking at the reported link. If the crime in question was something that is likely to provoke a lot of heated discussion or talk that is likely to cross over the code of conduct line, it might have been closed down for that. Links about criminal activity, even if it's just to a news article, might see this kind of careful moderation at times, but this is something that we can review on the CM side when those threads are closed down and post a response about to alleviate confusion.
Also, in plagues case it wasn't the smiley exactly, it was the comparing to forum individuals and saying that one was better in a way - and to be honest, this was a super mild infraction and something we might look into changing/being more lenient on in the future.
Thank you Trevor for the bit of acknowledgement. If in the future it can avoid another member getting banned, we will have accomplished something.
I appreciated the effort and communication you are giving the Community.
I don't have the specifics, but this sounds like the orcs erring on the side of caution after looking at the reported link. If the crime in question was something that is likely to provoke a lot of heated discussion or talk that is likely to cross over the code of conduct line, it might have been closed down for that. Links about criminal activity, even if it's just to a news article, might see this kind of careful moderation at times, but this is something that we can review on the CM side when those threads are closed down and post a response about to alleviate confusion.
The thread was about a lady who tried to (or maybe succeeded) sell her baby at Taco Bell. Borderline, admittedly, but having more than one person looking at threads like this would be very useful on several levels. Again, THANK YOU for this thread and the promises you've made. It makes us feel less
and more 
The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 4. Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense.. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
"So I’ve been running a campaign for a while and the PCs have gotten up into epic levels. They have decided that they want to start a criminal organization. One of the players suggested that they start off by creating a brothel and recruit prostitutes. They are in a large city with several other criminal organizations and political corruption is around mid-level. So my question is, how would one go about starting up a prostitution business?"
"So they should kill off the pimps and people running the other guild and keep the prostitues? Or should they get rid of everyone, including the prostitutes? "
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access Wizards Community until 08/20/11 This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
I'm a bit confused how this is promoting, planning, glorifying, or engaging in illegal activities... at least not any more than asking how to kill off a villain. It's not as if I was asking for a price per act by prostitutes, saying how awesome it would be to open up a brothel down the tstreet from my house.
I did get a mod and warning I do not understand. It started when I started a thread by posting a news article about a crime and included a snarky comment about the stupidity of the action. After that I was moderated for "illegal activity of the code of conduct". Rather that taking the literal interpretion that the CoC committed an illegal act, I concluded that it was referring to a violation of section four.
I then responded by asking how I violated section four with details of the infractions under that section and how I did not violate them.
CS then wrote back that some topics where banned to make the forums more friendly.
I then asked them what topics where banned so I would not run across them by accident.
Then they directed my to read the CoC, which it would be clear that I already read by my first response.
I still am not quite sure why that thread was deleted. But I do know a few topics that are banned that are not listed in the CoC, religion and politics.
I don't have the specifics, but this sounds like the orcs erring on the side of caution after looking at the reported link. If the crime in question was something that is likely to provoke a lot of heated discussion or talk that is likely to cross over the code of conduct line, it might have been closed down for that. Links about criminal activity, even if it's just to a news article, might see this kind of careful moderation at times, but this is something that we can review on the CM side when those threads are closed down and post a response about to alleviate confusion.
The article was about a women arrested for trying to sell her baby at a Taco Bell. I do not see how that would be likely to lead to conversations that violate the CoC.
Assuming that was the reason, then they should have pointed to the disruption clause in the CoC rather than trying to shoe horn it into section four. Additionally they should have stated that the reason that the thread was moderated was disruptive potential, especially after I responded asking for moderation.
Additionally, the thread was not lock, it was deleted. This leaves no chance for it to be reviewed and no chance to post a response to alleviate the confusion. Though they have a chance to explain it to me at least, but utterly failed to actually do so.
Trevor is away at PAX this weekend, but I wanted to hop in here and address something.
We understand that folks get angry and upset when they are subjected to moderation. However, accusing the ORCs and our Customer Service folks of lying is a bit over the line.
We are looking at improving the way we do things, which is why this thread and the other threads like it have been posted in recent days. One of the things we can look into is improving and/or personalizing our automated responses (or eliminating automated responses all together).
It's a common term.
It's not an offensive term.
It seemed to correctly describe the attitude that the poster was displaying.
The cited reason for the ban was "baiting" - but my post was edited to remove the term "concern troll" while leaving my explanation of why this was the case intact.
And I don't understand why that was. If it was "baiting" to say "You claim to be X, while also claiming that all X are morally weak and intellectually inferior to Y, and that's not true *anyway*", then why was only the succinct summation edited out?
That's my "ban I don't understand". I honestly suspect it was because the mod in question didn't know what the word meant and didn't look it up - like banning someone for using "masticate" while leaving intact references to chewing in the very next sentence.
Ok, I've got a couple comments to add. I've been modded or had entire posts deleted literally hundreds of times, but looking in the "My Stuff" tab shows only 3 instances of modding or bans. I think that's a big problem right there, we cant really modify our behavior if we don't know what it is we said wrong.
But going by what's there, Reference # 091214-000409, this one goes back aways, but I don't see what's inappropriate about it, the Topic was who was better Elminster or Blackstaff, I voted for El, one of the points I brought up, and the one that got me in trouble, was that Elminster has magical underwear, or maybe it was the comment about AO going through El's porn stash? Anyway, both of those happened in one of the novels, so if its appropriate enough for a D&D novel, shouldn't it be appropriate on the D&D forums as well?
It was deleted, and I was warned. Never understood why, but it struck me as mega-overzealous.
-O
wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Hi Obryn,
I remember that thread. In a vacuum, that thread would be fine as a humorous bit of satire. However, as I recall, it was posted while we were in the middle of a storm of 5th edition speculation threads as well as a number of Pathfinder vs 4E system wars. In that sort of environment, a thread like that would've been seen not as harmless humor but another spark for the flames. As the ORCs were already busy putting out several bonfires, that thread was removed before it could become a problem.
In short, when emotions are already running hot, something intended as humor is very likely to be taken as the exact opposite.
Hope that helps.
(Trevor's Edit - This is pretty much the answer I would give. That post was pretty much a "Hey, here's some funny theory crafting about the future" that was made in context with all the speculations that were going on. It seemed to be a pretty clear post that was poking fun at that rampant theory crafting, and those where were doing it, to me. It was reported and actioned because of that baiting/harassing behavior.)
(Removed the controversial bit - Trevor)
Steve
(Trevor - I just removed a reference to a post that I removed)
So just what's the safety line on "contoversial"? 'cause I've had perfectly fine threads about the morality of lying, the ethics of blood and organ donation, and the importance of freedom of speech even in a setting where it doesn't legally apply, controversial topics all.
So political discussions are definitely reportable as things that often cause some pretty big disruptions, as I've mentioned elsewhere, a lot of the topics you have mentioned here can be pretty political in nature, so if they get reported, we'll likely remove it and take some moderation action. If it doesn't get reported, then it may appear to be safe. In the end, if you think it might be controversial and might even possibly get reported and actioned, then you might want to think about having that discussion in a more ethical or political forum space - there are plenty of those out there. We can't call out every individual topic and say "this one's good, this one's bad, etc." I need people to use the code of conduct, their best judgement, and their experience on the boards to inform their decision to post about topics that may not be acceptable for a gaming forum.
While we're at it, I still want an answer to why it's acceptable to give me a five day (stated as a three day) ban for saying that drug laws in the US should be changed. It shouldn't be my problem that the mods can't understand that laws aren't forever-and-always and it's perfectly legal to object to laws that you feel go too far and advocate for changing them in a perfectly legal and dutiful fashion.
This is a political discussion, and as stated in a few places, this isn't okay on our forums. You likely received the three-day ban (and if it was longer than it should have been I apologize, but hopefully the earlier answer on what to do in those cases would help out i the future) because you consistently had some conduct violations.
On that topic, why is it disruptive for me to bring up that particularly egregarious example of bad moderation when the topic is bad moderation?
You can bring up previous moderation actions in this thread if you stick to the basic rules that I expressed in the first post, but if you can't do it respectfully and without attacking others (including orcs) then you should expect some moderation action.
And yes, I am including references to incidents that predate the current system.
I'm more than willing to talk about moderation action under the current system and if there's something we can fix, I'll try. However, if it's under an older system or previous management, there may be little I can do because changes have already happened.
In other news, why is it vulgar to tell someone that it isn't acceptable to hit a woman because you think she's a crazy, but not vulgar to advocate domestic violence? That one really got me.
Advocating domestic violence is against the code of conduct and if you see someone doing that, it should be reported.
I am curious to know why writing sodomy was deemed a violation of section 2.
Talking about any sexual act is likely to set someone off, and sexual references will be moderated on, even something as simple as this.
So... I recently got banned for this...The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 4. Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense.. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
"So I’ve been running a campaign for a while and the PCs have gotten up into epic levels. They have decided that they want to start a criminal organization. One of the players suggested that they start off by creating a brothel and recruit prostitutes. They are in a large city with several other criminal organizations and political corruption is around mid-level. So my question is, how would one go about starting up a prostitution business?"
"So they should kill off the pimps and people running the other guild and keep the prostitues? Or should they get rid of everyone, including the prostitutes? "
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access Wizards Community until 08/20/11 This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
I'm a bit confused how this is promoting, planning, glorifying, or engaging in illegal activities... at least not any more than asking how to kill off a villain. It's not as if I was asking for a price per act by prostitutes, saying how awesome it would be to open up a brothel down the tstreet from my house.
As mentioned by me in a previous post, some of these "How would you handle this in a D&D game" posts are fine, some skirt the acceptable line, and some cross right over it. When one of those is reported, the ORCs are likely going to err on the side of caution and remove the content or close the thread. I plan to set something in place very soon for me and my team to review these closed threads and reopen the ones that we feel aren't stepping over that line.
In this particular case, it's not hard to see how discussing how the characters can move in and set up a prostitution ring through criminal activity would closely touch on how someone would do that in the real world. While your post may not jump into that promoting and glorifying prostitution, it's likely the responses would have quickly down that road.
We are not going to treat repeat offenders with the same kid gloves that we would treat someone who rarely, if ever, crosses that conduct line. Cross that line a few times, and I can see that there is confusion, cross it consistently and it's more than a little likely that the community member in question should know better. Someone who consistently crosses that line will likely get harsher punishment/vacation. We need to be able to escalate warns/bans for those repeat offenders or there's even less disincentive to not be a jerk.
This isn't up for debate and not really the purpose of this thread, so I'll be removing the discussion that went on here about that.
I'm also removing back and forth conversations that are defending or attacking certain moderation actions (that aren't staff posts) as well as the conversation about the automated email bit being lying. I'll look into that last one, but if it's the automated email that is sent to you when an incident is created, it's unlikely we'll be able to do anything about that, except apologize for any confusion it might be causing. We're not trying to misrepresent what's going on, but we do need to have a standard bit of text that is sent out when an incident is created, and if the only problem it's causing is a small amount of kerfluffle with some conduct incidents, this may not be something we can really change any time soon.
I received a 24-hour ban for describing another person's behaviour as "concern trolling"
It's a common term.
It's not an offensive term.
It seemed to correctly describe the attitude that the poster was displaying.
The cited reason for the ban was "baiting" - but my post was edited to remove the term "concern troll" while leaving my explanation of why this was the case intact.
And I don't understand why that was. If it was "baiting" to say "You claim to be X, while also claiming that all X are morally weak and intellectually inferior to Y, and that's not true *anyway*", then why was only the succinct summation edited out?
That's my "ban I don't understand". I honestly suspect it was because the mod in question didn't know what the word meant and didn't look it up - like banning someone for using "masticate" while leaving intact references to chewing in the very next sentence.
Pointing to someone and saying "they are a troll" or "this thing you're doing is trolling" is baiting, and in many contexts is also harassment. Because of that, it is reportable and actionable. If you see this kind of behavior, report it instead of calling out to someone that they're trolling.
With the concern troll thing specifically, if I understand the article correctly, it's in reference to a person who is being two-faced/deceptive in a debate to lul a person or side into believing they are on the same side, only to abuse that trust and turn on them later. Calling someone a concern troll or saying their behavior is that of a concern troll is still baiting and reportable.
I received a 24-hour ban for describing another person's behaviour as "concern trolling"
Pointing to someone and saying "they are a troll" or "this thing you're doing is trolling" is baiting, and in many contexts is also harassment. Because of that, it is reportable and actionable. If you see this kind of behavior, report it instead of calling out to someone that they're trolling.
Fair enough, understood, and thank you for the feedback.
With the concern troll thing specifically, if I understand the article correctly, it's in reference to a person who is being two-faced/deceptive in a debate to lul a person or side into believing they are on the same side, only to abuse that trust and turn on them later. Calling someone a concern troll or saying their behavior is that of a concern troll is still baiting and reportable.
More "you claim to be a member of a group you are not, and by claiming to be a member become the default representative, and use that status to make the group look dumb".
But, again, fair enough. Reporting rather than responding is the new order of the day.
I appreciate this thread and that the forum admins are responding to feedback, thank you.
Ok, I've got a couple comments to add. I've been modded or had entire posts deleted literally hundreds of times, but looking in the "My Stuff" tab shows only 3 instances of modding or bans. I think that's a big problem right there, we cant really modify our behavior if we don't know what it is we said wrong.But going by what's there, Reference # 091214-000409, this one goes back aways, but I don't see what's inappropriate about it, the Topic was who was better Elminster or Blackstaff, I voted for El, one of the points I brought up, and the one that got me in trouble, was that Elminster has magical underwear, or maybe it was the comment about AO going through El's porn stash? Anyway, both of those happened in one of the novels, so if its appropriate enough for a D&D novel, shouldn't it be appropriate on the D&D forums as well?
I'm still in Seattle and having a few problems accessing the incident on my wireless for some reason. I'll try again tomorrow and see if I can get all the info so I can respond.
Thread community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... Today. I put in a two part post the first part was basicly agreeing with something someone else said.
The rest which was about two paragraphs was directed at someone who had been attacking the members of OTT. [Incident: 110827-000335] When you open this there will only be one line of text... What happened to the rest of it? was the rest not an offense that was deleted simply for being an agreement?
If I'm reading this correctly, the whole section that was removed was basically calling a forum member to the mat for attacking a forum member. While your intentions sound like they were solid, calling out a forum member like that is baiting/harassing, and actionable because of that. Instead of doing that - the content and poster should be reported. If the content that was removed wasn't part of the written attack on that person, please let me know in a PM with the details of what was removed and I'll look into it.
Or was someone covering their ass again because they realized they really screwed up... again...
This right here is a great example of animosity that just isn't needed, and harmful to the community. It's an angry pointed jab - or a twist of the knife, if you will. We really need to do our best to drop whatever animosity we might have and just talk about these issues plainly.
Not a question about why an action was taken as to why an action wasn't. On May 1st, a poster suggested that I "Piss an moan like an impotent jerk, then bend over and take it up the tailpipe" The user was not banned, even temporarily. If this sort of declaration is not a bannable offense, while "yawn" or "I take X's word over yours" is bannable, the impression I get is that the extent of your offensive language policy is "we ban you if we feel like it."
As I believe I've stated before, I can't and won't talk about actions that were or weren't taken against another user. But if I remember correctly, action was taken. If not, please point to where this post is in a PM so I can take care of it.
Count_Von_CoC
I got a post modded yesterday. But I'm not confused as to why. Sorry for making ORC_God of Mischief earn his paycheck.
DrNick
This is probably going to get moderated but it was me. I deserved it. (it was totally worth it).
Seriously guys, please stop doing this. There's no good reason that you should knowingly violate the code of conduct and post up something that you know is going to get moderated. It creates more work for people, often frustrates at least one person, generally hurts the community, and flies in the face of all the work we're trying to accomplish here.
The goal is that people can come to this thread and have their question answered, either by posting or by seeing an answer that we've already posted. And the information here is as much for those people who haven't ever violated the code of conduct as it is for those who are more familiar with the process, and I want to make sure it's easily accessible to both.
Not a question about why an action was taken as to why an action wasn't. On May 1st, a poster suggested that I "Piss an moan like an impotent jerk, then bend over and take it up the tailpipe" The user was not banned, even temporarily. If this sort of declaration is not a bannable offense, while "yawn" or "I take X's word over yours" is bannable, the impression I get is that the extent of your offensive language policy is "we ban you if we feel like it."
As I believe I've stated before, I can't and won't talk about actions that were or weren't taken against another user. But if I remember correctly, action was taken. If not, please point to where this post is in a PM so I can take care of it.
The post was deleted: my question wasn't "why was no action taken", my question was "why did that action not include a ban." If that one incident too specific for you to comment on, let me ask a some more broadly applicable questions: there have been times, as you yourself noted, that bans were handed out for very mildly impolite statements, while other times seemingly very rude and offensive language is simply deleted. What exactly is the policy on handing out bans for offensive language? Do ORCs have complete autonomy when it comes to these decisions? If an ORC makes a bad call, do they have to answer for it?
It would seem odd to me, since the definition of "offensive" is so varied and personal, if one ORC can make the call to ban or not ban someone. IMO, any post deleted by an ORC should go through some kind of multi-ORC review and have the decision to ban be determined by vote.
On the topic of repeat conduct offenders when compared to those that don't cross that line often:
We are not going to treat repeat offenders with the same kid gloves that we would treat someone who rarely, if ever, crosses that conduct line. Cross that line a few times, and I can see that there is confusion, cross it consistently and it's more than a little likely that the community member in question should know better. Someone who consistently crosses that line will likely get harsher punishment/vacation. We need to be able to escalate warns/bans for those repeat offenders or there's even less disincentive to not be a jerk.
This isn't up for debate and not really the purpose of this thread, so I'll be removing the discussion that went on here about that.
I'm also removing back and forth conversations that are defending or attacking certain moderation actions (that aren't staff posts) as well as the conversation about the automated email bit being lying. I'll look into that last one, but if it's the automated email that is sent to you when an incident is created, it's unlikely we'll be able to do anything about that, except apologize for any confusion it might be causing. We're not trying to misrepresent what's going on, but we do need to have a standard bit of text that is sent out when an incident is created, and if the only problem it's causing is a small amount of kerfluffle with some conduct incidents, this may not be something we can really change any time soon.
So where can we discuss this problem with the moderation of the forums?
*ahem*
I have received a three day ban (that lasted five days) for advocating changing America's drug laws. The e-mail I received explictly said it was a section 4 violation. Surprised by this, I double-checked with them and received a response saying that yes, indeed, I was moderated for planning/glorifying/advocating/etcetera illegal activity, even as the CS representative aknowledged that I did no such thing and was only advocating changing the laws.
I would appreciate an explanation on how that works.
Also, in the OTT I have been modded for a section 6 violation for mentioning said incident (along with a jab at having been modded for mocking myself) because it was a disruption. In the WDYWTA? thread. In response to another poster talking about moderation war-stories. The reference number is "110714-000335" in case you want to see for yourself what was said. In case you're unfamiliar, the WDYWTA? thread is explictly set up to talk about whatever you feel like with no expectation of continuity, discussion flow, or cohesion.
So I would appreciate an explanation of how a post, in direct response to another post, in a thread that has no expectation of continuity and everything is on-topic, that received no follow-up posts, could be disruptive or off-topic.
The post was deleted: my question wasn't "why was no action taken", my question was "why did that action not include a ban." If that one incident too specific for you to comment on, let me ask a some more broadly applicable questions: there have been times, as you yourself noted, that bans were handed out for very mildly impolite statements, while other times seemingly very rude and offensive language is simply deleted. What exactly is the policy on handing out bans for offensive language? Do ORCs have complete autonomy when it comes to these decisions? If an ORC makes a bad call, do they have to answer for it?
Asking what action was or wasn't taken against another user - that's still something we're not going to talk about. As to the more general question, we make efforts to try to educate people before straight out suspending them. If a violation is bad enough, we'll move straight to a suspension, but if not, we'd rather remove the content and warn the user. As for the orcs, they all follow the same process. If it's an odd corner-case, it is very common for an orc to discuss it with the lead on duty, and the other orcs on duty.
I have received a three day ban (that lasted five days) for advocating changing America's drug laws. The e-mail I received explictly said it was a section 4 violation. Surprised by this, I double-checked with them and received a response saying that yes, indeed, I was moderated for planning/glorifying/advocating/etcetera illegal activity, even as the CS representative aknowledged that I did no such thing and was only advocating changing the laws.
So I've checked through our incident history and our moderation logs. You've had 4 warnings and 0 suspensions. If you're talking about another account, then please clear that up and let me know. I think you're talking about the warn that was given to you in incident 11407-000123, which was on a thread you created about mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. We didn't see any responses from you to that email/incident, and I've double checked the moderation log that shows me it was a warn, not a suspension. The email we sent out that you should have recieved explicitly states that you violated “section 6, forum disruption, of the Code of Conduct. Please do not discuss controversial subjects in the forums." - nothing about Illegal Activities or section 4.
If you somehow have a different email or incident, please give me the incident number and I'll look into this, but this seems like a case of misremembering something from what I can see of looking at all the data. But again, if you're talking about another account or another incident, please give me that info and I'll look into it.
Also, in the OTT I have been modded for a section 6 violation for mentioning said incident (along with a jab at having been modded for mocking myself) because it was a disruption. In the WDYWTA? thread. In response to another poster talking about moderation war-stories. The reference number is "110714-000335" in case you want to see for yourself what was said. In case you're unfamiliar, the WDYWTA? thread is explictly set up to talk about whatever you feel like with no expectation of continuity, discussion flow, or cohesion.
So I would appreciate an explanation of how a post, in direct response to another post, in a thread that has no expectation of continuity and everything is on-topic, that received no follow-up posts, could be disruptive or off-topic.
Talking about forum moderation in any other thread beyond this one is going to be considered a disruption, and reportable and actionable because of that. I can definitely understand how this could be missed and how people might think every topic is fair game in the OTT, which is why I put up an announcement post that makes this a bit clearer in the OTT.
So where can we discuss this problem with the moderation of the forums?
At this point, I have my hands full with this discussion Dane. If/when this thread settles down into a steady trickle of questions and responses, I'll start up another official one. Until then, please feel free to PM me about what you don't like about the moderation system and suggestions on how you would like it changed.
I think you're talking about the warn that was given to you in incident 11407-000123, which was on a thread you created about mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.
Nope. And if that's as far back as your system goes, then my memory is better then it. That incident was Gleemax-era Astrid's Parlor. If that's too far back I understand, though I've always been curious about how that made sense to anyone involved.
Hello Trevor,
A thread I started was poofed. I was told it was a violation of section 4. This is the incident number: [110831-000182].
I was thinking, section 4 is pretty clear and the thread I started didn't violate it, it was just sharing something funny and interesting with fellow OTTers. Maybe section 4 should be changed to something like:" Activities that are illegal in the USA cannot be discussed outside of a DnD context". It would be pretty clear and people wouldn't be surprised when moderation happen. Just saying.
About warnings. Do they fade over time? I mean if I am punished now for warnings that I got a year ago, this is kind of unfair. People change and can become better posters or learn from their mistakes.
Also, do you think warnings can make someone more vulnerable to people who have grudges or stalkers?
Thanks.
So in this case it was a conversation about prostitution and the way the german government was handling it. I think that citing section 4 may have been the wrong call, so I apologize for that, but this is political and touches on the sexual, so I would have reported it as inappropriate. So in the end, it still should have been actioned, but it looks like the the wrong section might have been referenced.
In this case for the Code of Conduct, I don't think it should be just illegal activities in the US (though that's generally a good yard stick to use since we are in the US) and I don't want to put the D&D caveat in there. Sometimes these topics can go pretty far even in a D&D conversation and in those cases we'll still want to moderate. However, as I stated in a couple earlier responses in this thread, we will work on closing those threads when there's a possible issue, and then have someone from the CM team step in and determine if it should remain closed or open it.
A person's past moderations/suspensions definitely play a part in moderation decisions, but so does consistency. If a community member is constantly stepping over the code of conduct, and the same sections of the code of conduct, or if the infraction is strong enough, we'll moderate or suspend with that in mind. So if a user has consistently done the same infractions, or is constantly stepping into that grey zone, and those are tied into an older pattern of abuse, then yes, those older actions will definitely come into play.
I think you're talking about the warn that was given to you in incident 11407-000123, which was on a thread you created about mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.
Nope. And if that's as far back as your system goes, then my memory is better then it. That incident was Gleemax-era Astrid's Parlor. If that's too far back I understand, though I've always been curious about how that made sense to anyone involved.
I could jump into the older warns and look it up, but I'm not confident that I would be able to comment much on what I would find, having it be a different system with different management, etc. If you still have the actual email or incident number I'd love to see it and that would be all I really need to track it down.
In this case for the Code of Conduct, I don't think it should be just illegal activities in the US (though that's generally a good yard stick to use since we are in the US)
I would suggest, as a non-lawyer who still has a fair bit of knowledge about this kind of thing, that you pick one country of laws to follow and stick to it. There's a very good reason that most licenses say "both parties agree that the laws that apply to this license are the laws of [wherever]". Most often California or Delaware.
Saying "the D&D character builder can be cracked, here's how to do it" is legal in Norway, but not the US.
Saying "the D&D character builder sucks" is illegal in the UK, but not the US.
My point is, as soon as you open it up to "is it illegal anywhere (not just the US)" that's a can of worms.
But going by what's there, Reference # 091214-000409, this one goes back aways, but I don't see what's inappropriate about it, the Topic was who was better Elminster or Blackstaff, I voted for El, one of the points I brought up, and the one that got me in trouble, was that Elminster has magical underwear, or maybe it was the comment about AO going through El's porn stash? Anyway, both of those happened in one of the novels, so if its appropriate enough for a D&D novel, shouldn't it be appropriate on the D&D forums as well?
I'm still in Seattle and having a few problems accessing the incident on my wireless for some reason. I'll try again tomorrow and see if I can get all the info so I can respond.
Okay, did some digging and pulled this one out. it looks like another user reported this one and you got a warning (not suspension) and the content was removed. This was reported by another user and the orc in question must have not realized it was an actual book reference and actioned it as inappropriate.
Sorry for the confusion on that one, and I'll make sure we pass it on as a learning point for future actions.
My point is, as soon as you open it up to "is it illegal anywhere (not just the US)" that's a can of worms.
Hrm...the instant someone is able to say, "Dear ORC, you shouldn't have taken action on me because there's at least one country where [whatever I was talking about] isn't illegal," then I think we have a real can of worms.
Just a thought:My point is, as soon as you open it up to "is it illegal anywhere (not just the US)" that's a can of worms.
Hrm...the instant someone is able to say, "Dear ORC, you shouldn't have taken action on me because there's at least one country where [whatever I was talking about] isn't illegal," then I think we have a real can of worms.
That's obviously a huge problem, transparently abusable, legally easy.
"This is NOT ILLEGAL where I am!" is a smaller problem, and much less legally clear.
"That is illegal SOMEWHERE, therefore it must be banned HERE!" is the real thing I'm worried about.
In this case for the Code of Conduct, I don't think it should be just illegal activities in the US (though that's generally a good yard stick to use since we are in the US) and I don't want to put the D&D caveat in there. Sometimes these topics can go pretty far even in a D&D conversation and in those cases we'll still want to moderate. However, as I stated in a couple earlier responses in this thread, we will work on closing those threads when there's a possible issue, and then have someone from the CM team step in and determine if it should remain closed or open it.
A person's past moderations/suspensions definitely play a part in moderation decisions, but so does consistency. If a community member is constantly stepping over the code of conduct, and the same sections of the code of conduct, or if the infraction is strong enough, we'll moderate or suspend with that in mind. So if a user has consistently done the same infractions, or is constantly stepping into that grey zone, and those are tied into an older pattern of abuse, then yes, those older actions will definitely come into play.
This is possibly the most informative post on Section 4 that anyone has made. Thank you, Trevor.
And the second paragraph, while a reiteration, didn't really answer his question. What he's asking is "How long will a reputation for bending and/or breaking the CoC haunt me if I make an effort to reform?"
Saying "the D&D character builder sucks" is illegal in the UK
Umm... I don't think that's actually true.
I agree that we need a definitive answer on which legal system is being used as the standard, though. Otherwise, I can easily imagine the ORCs getting deluged with reports like: "Poster A suggested Poster B get his girlfriend to drive him to the gaming store. This is illegal (in Saudi Arabia) and therefore this post violates the CoC for advocating illegal acts." Amusing though that might be, I think it's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.
And the second paragraph, while a reiteration, didn't really answer his question. What he's asking is "How long will a reputation for bending and/or breaking the CoC haunt me if I make an effort to reform?"
Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was giving all that information to show that if you consistently do conduct violations, then everything in the string of conduct contacts could come into play. The other side of that is if you've made an effort to change and you're no longer stepping into that conduct zone, then we'll notice and we aren't going to tie you up with your past actions unless you start violating regularly again.
Hello again,
So I got banned for this incident: [110831-000349]. I think it is pretty clear that my French mind (a real handicap) cannot grasp what is and is not inappropriate (seriously) for a forum full of male gamers. I could say that what Americans consider inappropriate is alien and antiquated (no offense) for me. But I won't.
Wouldn't it be simpler if the CoC just said that talking about sex, sexual innuendoes and sexual references are against the CoC?
While it may not be incredibly clear to some, talking about sex or sexual acts is reportable and actionable. I'll see if we can make that more obvious the next time we touch up the code of conduct.
But going by what's there, Reference # 091214-000409, this one goes back aways, but I don't see what's inappropriate about it, the Topic was who was better Elminster or Blackstaff, I voted for El, one of the points I brought up, and the one that got me in trouble, was that Elminster has magical underwear, or maybe it was the comment about AO going through El's porn stash? Anyway, both of those happened in one of the novels, so if its appropriate enough for a D&D novel, shouldn't it be appropriate on the D&D forums as well?
I'm still in Seattle and having a few problems accessing the incident on my wireless for some reason. I'll try again tomorrow and see if I can get all the info so I can respond.
Okay, did some digging and pulled this one out. it looks like another user reported this one and you got a warning (not suspension) and the content was removed. This was reported by another user and the orc in question must have not realized it was an actual book reference and actioned it as inappropriate.
Sorry for the confusion on that one, and I'll make sure we pass it on as a learning point for future actions.
Thank You good sir! I feel vindicated! So I can talk about Elminster's Enchanted Underwear, Yes! Bwahahahaha!! Kidding, Im not going to abuse the privilege.
Oh, and I wanted to bring up a point about those links to the Previous Editions Downloads. This may not be the best place for it, but I just want to say that I think its a mistake to get rid of them, I think that was one of the coolest things WotC has ever done, and theyre all out of print anyway, so its not like WotC is going to lose money from them or anything, I mean its not like some ones going to go oh I dont have to buy any more 4e stuff cause I just downloaded Volo's Guide to Cormyr or whatever, ya know? That and it made a handy reference, especially for some of the newer Forgotton Realms people, like theyd have a question about Realmslore, and 9 times out of 10 I could just link to those downloads and say check out the Netheril box set or what have you. Very handy!
Incident: 111016-000078
In response to
Halloween really is the most social liberal of all festivals.
I wrote
No, that would be MLK Day. "Let's give all public employees a day off cuz some black guy did something and then got shot!"
When I asked for clarification, not only did it take TWO DAYS AND THREE E-MAILS to get an answer, the answer I got was... less than satisfying.
1) How, exactly, was what I said a "racial slur"? I wasn't aware that stating the truth about one specific thing constituted a slur of any kind, let alone one against an entire race. MLK was, in fact, a black man, who did something, got shot for it, and now has a national holiday named after him, which means that public (aka government) employees get the day off. Not one word stated is untrue, it was just stated in a joking manner, IN RESPONSE TO A JOKE.
2) Even were I willing to concede that it IS a racial slur, which I am not, why was it ban-worthy? Is a "racial slur" an automatic ejection? I haven't had so much as a post modded in the last two months, let alone a warn or ban for my behavior, yet the response was "Go to jail, go directly to jail. Do not collect $200,
Our conduct policies are unfortunately not transparent and there's not a lot of discussion I can engage in to that end. This is the eighth violation in the last four months or so. I understand you may not agree with this action, but I remind you that Wizards of the Coast staff are the final judges of whether a member's behavior qualifies as inappropriate or a disruptive. We will take your feedback into account, but cannot reverse this action. I do apologize for the frustration this has caused.
Now, please realize that this was the SECOND time that I had asked these questions. The first time (which went completely unanswered, BTW) I made the point that my statement was, if anything, a political slur, not a racial one. Which is ok, since it occured in a private group. The answer I got in response to my first question was, honestly, exactly what expected from your sterling CS team. The answer to my second question, however, is the one that really chaps my ass, since it put the lie to your statement.
And the second paragraph, while a reiteration, didn't really answer his question. What he's asking is "How long will a reputation for bending and/or breaking the CoC haunt me if I make an effort to reform?"
Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was giving all that information to show that if you consistently do conduct violations, then everything in the string of conduct contacts could come into play. The other side of that is if you've made an effort to change and you're no longer stepping into that conduct zone, then we'll notice and we aren't going to tie you up with your past actions unless you start violating regularly again.
The bolded portions are the ones that have me upset, and I would really like an explanation. Thank you.
What's "Too objectionable" is wonky - if it breaks the code of conduct, it breaks the code of conduct. As to the rest, when something gets modded we generally leave a note. If not, then it was usually a small edit for continuity (aka keeping things on track, keeping quoted posts clear of reported material) and very rarely for really minor infractions.
In addition to that, we're working on messaging more often when a thread is touched by ORC or CM staff.
It's also worth mentioning that the unnamed ORC who deleted my post and banned me also locked the thread with no note as to who or why. And remember, this was in a private group. I'm sorry Trevor, but it's starting to look like more of the same.
In the least this is definitely an inflamatory statement that you know people are going to be upset about - at worst, some will see it as racist. Either way there's no place for a statement like that in our forums.
What's "Too objectionable" is wonky - if it breaks the code of conduct, it breaks the code of conduct. As to the rest, when something gets modded we generally leave a note. If not, then it was usually a small edit for continuity (aka keeping things on track, keeping quoted posts clear of reported material) and very rarely for really minor infractions.
In addition to that, we're working on messaging more often when a thread is touched by ORC or CM staff.
It's also worth mentioning that the unnamed ORC who deleted my post and banned me also locked the thread with no note as to who or why. And remember, this was in a private group. I'm sorry Trevor, but it's starting to look like more of the same.
This was reported by someone in that group. Regardless if a group is private or not, if content is reported, it will be looked into. As to no note of why it was removed, we've definitely improved that - though it's not perfect yet. It's still being implemented and it's probably going to be missed from time to time until it becomes habit for everybody.
And the second paragraph, while a reiteration, didn't really answer his question. What he's asking is "How long will a reputation for bending and/or breaking the CoC haunt me if I make an effort to reform?"
Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was giving all that information to show that if you consistently do conduct violations, then everything in the string of conduct contacts could come into play. The other side of that is if you've made an effort to change and you're no longer stepping into that conduct zone, then we'll notice and we aren't going to tie you up with your past actions unless you start violating regularly again.
The bolded portions are the ones that have me upset, and I would really like an explanation. Thank you.
So from what I can see in the system, you have a continued pattern of abuse that doesn't do anything to dissuade us from looking into your past conduct actions. Eight times in four months is definitely a continued pattern of abuse/offense. I'm sorry if you don't agree or understand that, but from what I can see, you're still violating the code of conduct consistently.
And the second paragraph, while a reiteration, didn't really answer his question. What he's asking is "How long will a reputation for bending and/or breaking the CoC haunt me if I make an effort to reform?"
Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was giving all that information to show that if you consistently do conduct violations, then everything in the string of conduct contacts could come into play. The other side of that is if you've made an effort to change and you're no longer stepping into that conduct zone, then we'll notice and we aren't going to tie you up with your past actions unless you start violating regularly again.
The bolded portions are the ones that have me upset, and I would really like an explanation. Thank you.
So from what I can see in the system, you have a continued pattern of abuse that doesn't do anything to dissuade us from looking into your past conduct actions. Eight times in four months is definitely a continued pattern of abuse/offense. I'm sorry if you don't agree or understand that, but from what I can see, you're still violating the code of conduct consistently.
Wrong. Eight times in four months may constitute a pattern. However, SEVEN times in two months FOLLOWED BY TWO MONTHS WITHOUT ANY INFRACTIONS, followed by one incident indicates "an effort to change and... no longer stepping into that conduct zone..." I'm sorry if you don't agree or understand that, but from what I can see, there's nothing "consistent" about it.
What's "Too objectionable" is wonky - if it breaks the code of conduct, it breaks the code of conduct. As to the rest, when something gets modded we generally leave a note. If not, then it was usually a small edit for continuity (aka keeping things on track, keeping quoted posts clear of reported material) and very rarely for really minor infractions.
In addition to that, we're working on messaging more often when a thread is touched by ORC or CM staff.
It's also worth mentioning that the unnamed ORC who deleted my post and banned me also locked the thread with no note as to who or why. And remember, this was in a private group. I'm sorry Trevor, but it's starting to look like more of the same.
This was reported by someone in that group. Regardless if a group is private or not, if content is reported, it will be looked into. As to no note of why it was removed, we've definitely improved that - though it's not perfect yet. It's still being implemented and it's probably going to be missed from time to time until it becomes habit for everybody.
I was more concerned about the ORC in question locking the thread. Again, with no note. And it's not the first time that content has been removed from that group with no note. Did I mention that your ORCs haven't been leaving notes in that group. EVER? That is not "missed from time to time", that is policy. If it's going to be policy for your ORCs not to leave a note in groups, why not just say so? And if it's not policy, then it's either a systemic failure, or your ORCs aren't listening to you.
Until we get a way to get around that (if we can even) there won't be any of those informative posts in a private group, but community goers should still be receiving emails/incidents when conduct action is taken against them.
Moderation is one of those things that we have to keep inside the paid walls, and in most cases, we don't share conduct actions with anybody outside the person being actioned, so I don't think we'll be able to pass duties around like that for private groups. If someone reports a possible violation to us, we have to look into it and take care of it if necessary.
I understand not sharing information about the reporter or specific reported action, but what about sharing the reason for the thread being locked? Basically just sending the owner the information that would normally be posted publicly if the thread was in the main forum instead of the private group.
Something along the lines of "Hey we closed the Evil Squirrels thread because plotting to overthrow the US government and eventually achieve world domination is against the Code of Conduct" and then we can pass that onto the group. It's a little more work on the responding ORC, but better than nothing until you can get around the issue of not being able to post in the private group, and it's not something that should come up too often anyway. Also, since there is the "contact owner" button on the group page I don't think it would be too much, just an extra step vs posting directly in the thread.
However, a kind of group report button that sends to the group mods could be a cool idea - I'll pass it on to Michelle so she can look into it.
Cool, thanks.
Okay, dug into this a bit more and there is actually an issue here - the orcs currently can't post in a private group forum if they're not members of that group. So they can edit or delete a post, but not make a new post. That's why you're not seeing any posts in your group.
They could edit the last post in the thread and post of the reason there. It isn't ideal, but it is better than no info.
Moderation is one of those things that we have to keep inside the paid walls, and in most cases, we don't share conduct actions with anybody outside the person being actioned, so I don't think we'll be able to pass duties around like that for private groups. If someone reports a possible violation to us, we have to look into it and take care of it if necessary. However, a kind of group report button that sends to the group mods could be a cool idea - I'll pass it on to Michelle so she can look into it.
Yeah, I figured as much. Never hurts to ask, though, right?
I appreciate you passing the report to group mods button info along, too. Right now we us the PM system and it works but it is a little cumbersome.They could edit the last post in the thread and post of the reason there. It isn't ideal, but it is better than no info.
Not a bad idea. Like you said, not ideal but better than nothing. As long as they make it clear where the post ends and the mod begins (like we try to do) everything should work out. I'm for this. Good idea, man.
I got a post deleted. There was no note, no e-mail, and there's nothing in "My Stuff" about it, though I'm sure it ended up on my "record". I'd like it taken off of my record, please. I'd also like an explanation as to why it was deleted. Thank you.
I need more information than that. There are some threads that I (and the CM team) delete content in at times, but we generally say somewhere in the thread that we're removing posts, though we may not mention specific ones. If that's not the case, I would need you to point out the thread and what you said that was removed so I can look into it.
Not a bad idea. Like you said, not ideal but better than nothing. As long as they make it clear where the post ends and the mod begins (like we try to do) everything should work out. I'm for this. Good idea, man.
I'm hestitant to throw a wrench in the process for specific cases of conduct violations that get reported in private groups. Changing processes for a whole work force like that isn't something that's done lightly. Right now, when conduct moderation action is taken, we generate an incident that gets delivered the person who action is being taken against. That incident appears in the persons my stuff tab and as an email in whatever linked email account they have. We've been taking the added steps of making some notes in public threads when we can. I'm not sure adding a convoluted work around for private groups is something we want to do on the back end, but I'll bring it up with the ORC folks and we'll at least talk about it.
I understand. I mean, when you're working hard to establish a SoP and ensure that it's followed, adding muddying elements is something that could be fairly dangerous to the endeavor. Anyhoo, the feedback is appreciated.
I got a post deleted. There was no note, no e-mail, and there's nothing in "My Stuff" about it, though I'm sure it ended up on my "record". I'd like it taken off of my record, please. I'd also like an explanation as to why it was deleted. Thank you.
I need more information than that. There are some threads that I (and the CM team) delete content in at times, but we generally say somewhere in the thread that we're removing posts, though we may not mention specific ones. If that's not the case, I would need you to point out the thread and what you said that was removed so I can look into it.
Meh. Why does it matter1? All I'll get is some bull 2 response that amounts to "We're right, you're wrong. Just deal with it."
1 Though I hold no hope of it making any sort of difference: I had a post deleted, without comment of any sort, for saying that there were people who voted for Obama just because he's black.
I also backed it up by citing a Newsweek article published a week before the '08 election which played on "White Guilt" and claimed that a McCain win could only result from racists voting for McCain just because Obama is black. I then showed that Obama won 95% of the black vote, which is even more than LBJ got in '64 after signing the Civil Rights Act.
2 And if I get a warn or ban for this, I will definitely be upset. It make it apparent that it is an equal violation to let the filter pick up words as it is to let/cause the filter ignore it.
I got a post deleted. There was no note, no e-mail, and there's nothing in "My Stuff" about it, though I'm sure it ended up on my "record". I'd like it taken off of my record, please. I'd also like an explanation as to why it was deleted. Thank you.
I need more information than that. There are some threads that I (and the CM team) delete content in at times, but we generally say somewhere in the thread that we're removing posts, though we may not mention specific ones. If that's not the case, I would need you to point out the thread and what you said that was removed so I can look into it.
Meh. Why does it matter1? All I'll get is some bull 2 response that amounts to "We're right, you're wrong. Just deal with it."
1 Though I hold no hope of it making any sort of difference: I had a post deleted, without comment of any sort, for saying that there were people who voted for Obama just because he's black.
I also backed it up by citing a Newsweek article published a week before the '08 election which played on "White Guilt" and claimed that a McCain win could only result from racists voting for McCain just because Obama is black. I then showed that Obama won 95% of the black vote, which is even more than LBJ got in '64 after signing the Civil Rights Act.
2 And if I get a warn or ban for this, I will definitely be upset. It make it apparent that it is an equal violation to let the filter pick up words as it is to let/cause the filter ignore it.
You're definitely right that this isn't a place to argue the code of conduct - it's for getting a warn or other action for something you didn't understand. If you understand, but don't agree, that might be something we take up in a different conversation. I'll try to look into it to see if I can find the incident, only because I do want the policy going forward to be that the orcs and CM make posts when content is removed in the public forums. Just looking at what you've said, it's definitely political, which is a reason to shut it down/remove it right there.
As for putting *** in the place of swear words to get around the filters - that is masking and it is a violation of the code of conduct. I didn't report it, but I did edit out the parts that were against the code of conduct.
As for putting *** in the place of swear words to get around the filters - that is masking and it is a violation of the code of conduct. I didn't report it, but I did edit out the parts that were against the code of conduct.
Actually, I wrote the words. The "****" is what the filter turns them into. My point was that I've already gotten warned for writing (the long form of) BS, because the filter doesn't pick up compound words containing the "S" part. As a matter of fact, that was one of my "eight actions in four months", as you and the last letter-writer from CS put it. If you put the space in between, the filter picks it up just fine. Yes, I noticed that glitch on accident.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that it was in a private group. Which explains why there was no note left in the thread, but not why there was no notification, or why it was deleted in the first place. If it wasn't in the group, I would agree that it was the correct action. My real question, I guess, is why was it deleted in the first place? It's not racist, nor is it even close. It's just... true. There were, in fact, people who voted for Obama just because he's black, just like there are people who voted for McCain just because Obama's black. Do I have to add qualifiers anytime I say something "negative" about a "minority public figure"?As for putting *** in the place of swear words to get around the filters - that is masking and it is a violation of the code of conduct. I didn't report it, but I did edit out the parts that were against the code of conduct.
Actually, I wrote the words. The "****" is what the filter turns them into. My point was that I've already gotten warned for writing (the long form of) BS, because the filter doesn't pick up compound words containing the "S" part. As a matter of fact, that was one of my "eight actions in four months", as you and the last letter-writer from CS put it. If you put the space in between, the filter picks it up just fine. Yes, I noticed that glitch on accident.
No warn, no message in your history, and no email means that it's not in your conduct history - just wanted to get that part out there first. So yeah, we didn't find anything on this in your conduct history. I'm looking into the incident, but I need a day and approximate time if you can give it to me. Was this under this account or another one? Also, is it possible that it was removed by one of the group admin or morderators?
Edit: I'm apparently too tired - I went to quote your post abive and ended up editing it by accident instead. I tried to put it back as it was, minus some of the quoting - but I'm uber sorry about that.
No warn, no message in your history, and no email means that it's not in your conduct history - just wanted to get that part out there first. So yeah, we didn't find anything on this in your conduct history. I'm looking into the incident, but I need a day and approximate time if you can give it to me. Was this under this account or another one? Also, is it possible that it was removed by one of the group admin or morderators?
It was either late on 22 Oct or early 23 Oct. I'm guessing late on the 22nd because one of the other group members noticed two ORCs in the group, maybe he remembers which ones so you can ask them but this is secondhand information. I didn't delete it and I don't believe the other mods did either (draco brought this up to us as soon as he noticed the missing post), although they are free to chime in for themselves here.
Edit: I'm apparently too tired - I went to quote your post abive and ended up editing it by accident instead. I tried to put it back as it was, minus some of the quoting - but I'm uber sorry about that.
Z_B take heart, you are not alone!
No warn, no message in your history, and no email means that it's not in your conduct history - just wanted to get that part out there first.
That's good to know. Thank you.
So yeah, we didn't find anything on this in your conduct history. I'm looking into the incident, but I need a day and approximate time if you can give it to me. Was this under this account or another one? Also, is it possible that it was removed by one of the group admin or morderators?
Naga's close. It was at some point in the 10.5 hours between 2333-0956 PST on 10/21-10/22/11. This account. You asked us to get rid of alts.
I'm relatively certain that both of the other group mods have also said that it wasn't them (might have been only one).
Edit: I'm apparently too tired - I went to quote your post abive and ended up editing it by accident instead. I tried to put it back as it was, minus some of the quoting - but I'm uber sorry about that.
No worries. You'd be surprised how often that happens. Although, since it was you and not Zombie_Babies, I spent a while trying to figure out what I did wrong.
does a guy gotta eat over a couple of mistake-edits?!! Oh, I did not remove the content in question. I'm 99% certain it was both posted and pulled before I knew anything about it.
"Other than the stupid and uninformed who voted for Obama just because he's black*? *A note to the reporter, and to the ORC that I'm sure will be called in to mod this statement:"
and
"*A note to the reporter, and to the ORC that I'm sure will be called in to mod this statement: A week before the '08 election, Newsweek (****ing NEWSWEEK!) had an www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/200..." title="www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/200...">article that claimed that a McCain win could only result from racism. Turnabout is fair play. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083335..." title="www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083335...">And true. Not to mention the fact that there are many people who were actually informed about his policies and politics and voted for him anyway.
This was reported by someone in the group and removed because it was inflammatory (calling a group of people stupid is never a good idea in the forums, even if you think you have good evidence), political (yep, that's enforced everywhere) and yeah, the race issue played a part in it too. So yeah, racial and political issues we're still going to remove and action on.
As for why you didn't get any conduct action taken beyond the removal, this was actually an error. It should have been recorded and actioned, but it somehow fell through the cracks. So a mistake in your favor basically - we don't miss steps like this very often, but it's bound to happen from time to time. And no, we're not going to go back and add in the actions now.
This was reported by someone in the group and removed because it was inflammatory (calling a group of people stupid is never a good idea in the forums, even if you think you have good evidence),
Alright, I can understand this. It wasn't really my intention to do that. I was trying to say that there were stupid people and there were uninformed (and not necessarily stupid) people who voted for him just because he's black. Out of curiosity, why is it ok to say that stupid people voted for McCain because Obama's black, but not what I said?
political (yep, that's enforced everywhere)
So you lied to us? Why?
and yeah, the race issue played a part in it too. So yeah, racial and political issues we're still going to remove and action on.
Fine. I would like it noted that I will report EVERY SINGLE TIME I find something racially offensive against whites. I expect the same action to be taken when I report.
This was reported by someone in the group and removed because it was inflammatory (calling a group of people stupid is never a good idea in the forums, even if you think you have good evidence), political (yep, that's enforced everywhere) and yeah, the race issue played a part in it too. So yeah, racial and political issues we're still going to remove and action on.
Racial issues I understand. Calling people stupid, that happens a lot around here, but yeah I get it. Political issues, that's where you're leaving me a little confused.
My understanding was that political issues were part of the OTT ban not part of the CoC, meaning if it was in a private group then political issues should be ok (assuming it doesn't turn into baiting and flaming, but then that is where the violation is, not necessarily the topic itself). We have an entire subforum on politics, are you saying that this is not ok even in a private group?
This was reported by someone in the group and removed because it was inflammatory (calling a group of people stupid is never a good idea in the forums, even if you think you have good evidence),
Alright, I can understand this. It wasn't really my intention to do that. I was trying to say that there were stupid people and there were uninformed (and not necessarily stupid) people who voted for him just because he's black. Out of curiosity, why is it ok to say that stupid people voted for McCain because Obama's black, but not what I said?political (yep, that's enforced everywhere)
So you lied to us? Why?and yeah, the race issue played a part in it too. So yeah, racial and political issues we're still going to remove and action on.
Fine. I would like it noted that I will report EVERY SINGLE TIME I find something racially offensive against whites. I expect the same action to be taken when I report.
I would hope you would know at this point that I really have no reason to lie, and that I'm really doing everything I can to look into this and talk with you guys about this stuff. I'm pretty sure when you're accusing me of lying you're talking about when I said we made a special bit about political conversation in OTT. I said that, because political conversations are clearly off topic in every other forum, and I just wasn't thinking about groups. While I can definitely see that I should have thought it through and included groups in the mix, there was no intent to deceive or lie and I am sorry for the mix up.
Orcs (and our community by extension of warns and us constantly bringing it up) are trained that political discussions aren't allowed because they of our past experience with them leading to disruptions. So if we run across political discussions or they are reported, we'll do something about it. And yes, all these same policies apply to the private groups - if it's reported we'll look into it.
Now of course I understand the frustration on the political conversation thing, but it's doubtful that we're going to change our minds on allowing it. It's possible we can get it added directly to the code of conduct at some point if that might make things a bit clearer.
As for reporting statements that you find racially offensive - please do.
I would hope you would know at this point that I really have no reason to lie, and that I'm really doing everything I can to look into this and talk with you guys about this stuff. I'm pretty sure when you're accusing me of lying you're talking about when I said we made a special bit about political conversation in OTT. I said that, because political conversations are clearly off topic in every other forum, and I just wasn't thinking about groups. While I can definitely see that I should have thought it through and included groups in the mix, there was no intent to deceive or lie and I am sorry for the mix up.
Actually, I said it because I remember you saying specifically that it is ok in groups. I can't seem to find it now, so I probably misremembered.
You may be willing to talk, but you don't seem all that willing to listen. Like I said in my post a few days ago (and I was right), it doesn't change anything.
Orcs (and our community by extension of warns and us constantly bringing it up) are trained that political discussions aren't allowed because they of our past experience with them leading to disruptions. So if we run across political discussions or they are reported, we'll do something about it. And yes, all these same policies apply to the private groups - if it's reported we'll look into it.
And if it's not reported, now that you know political discussion go on in private groups, they'll get "run across" more often, right?
Now of course I understand the frustration on the political conversation thing, but it's doubtful that we're going to change our minds on allowing it. It's possible we can get it added directly to the code of conduct at some point if that might make things a bit clearer.
Yeah, that would be awesome! That's exactly what we're asking for!
You do realize that there are quite a few people who only show up to talk about non-WotC related topics, right? Are you trying to chase them away, too? Your predecessor almost succeeded in killing these boards and did succeed in driving me away for years. Is it your goal to make it permanent?
As for reporting statements that you find racially offensive - please do.
Why? So I can get banhammered for trolling or excessive reporting? I've tried reporting. Nothing happened.
Orcs (and our community by extension of warns and us constantly bringing it up) are trained that political discussions aren't allowed because they of our past experience with them leading to disruptions. So if we run across political discussions or they are reported, we'll do something about it. And yes, all these same policies apply to the private groups - if it's reported we'll look into it.
And if it's not reported, now that you know political discussion go on in private groups, they'll get "run across" more often, right?
I have no desire or need to ramp up coverage so that we can police private groups in this manner, so no worries there.
Now of course I understand the frustration on the political conversation thing, but it's doubtful that we're going to change our minds on allowing it. It's possible we can get it added directly to the code of conduct at some point if that might make things a bit clearer.
Yeah, that would be awesome! That's exactly what we're asking for!
I'll take the happy exclamation as a small win for all of us, even with the eye roll
On a more serious note, I'll touch base with people on Monday and see how likely an addition like that would be.You do realize that there are quite a few people who only show up to talk about non-WotC related topics, right? Are you trying to chase them away, too? Your predecessor almost succeeded in killing these boards and did succeed in driving me away for years. Is it your goal to make it permanent?
I don't want to drive people off, but I do want to make it clear that we are a gaming company, and these forums are for discussions on gaming - more specifically and most often, discussion of our games. Yeah, as a community grows and people in it become comfortable with each other, they generally start having other, more off-topic conversations, and we've tried to provide a place for that. However, we still have to have some rules and guidelines that apply to all the parts of our community. There are other sites and other communities for talking about all those other topics that are off-topic or not allowed in our community. And that's normal. Talking about games in a gaming community and then switching sites to talk politics in a politics community is the average behavior. If we lose people who really want to have political discussions on this site because of those guidelines, that's unfortunate. But if they consistently want to have those discussions, they're likely better served having them in another community that supports those discussions.
Now that doesn't mean I want to kick out everybody who has ideas or interests beyond gaming and who want to talk about them - it just means that when they come here, they should know that we're going to be talking about gaming, and if, from time to time, they want to talk with some of there D&D or Magic community friends about most things off-topic we have a place for that too. But if they want to talk about politics or something else that we don't allow, they can step out and go to another community for a while to talk about those, and then pop back in here when they miss their D&D/Magic buds or want to talk gaming. It doesn't seem like that's asking too much of people.
As for reporting statements that you find racially offensive - please do.
Why? So I can get banhammered for trolling or excessive reporting? I've tried reporting. Nothing happened.
I'm not aware of anyone getting banned for excessive reporting - do you have an example?
As well, I'm certainly curious about what you reported that didn't get a response, and I suspect that Our Host is also curious *and* probably has a much better need to know than I do.
ShowI don't want to drive people off, but I do want to make it clear that we are a gaming company, and these forums are for discussions on gaming - more specifically and most often, discussion of our games. Yeah, as a community grows and people in it become comfortable with each other, they generally start having other, more off-topic conversations, and we've tried to provide a place for that. However, we still have to have some rules and guidelines that apply to all the parts of our community. There are other sites and other communities for talking about all those other topics that are off-topic or not allowed in our community. And that's normal. Talking about games in a gaming community and then switching sites to talk politics in a politics community is the average behavior. If we lose people who really want to have political discussions on this site because of those guidelines, that's unfortunate. But if they consistently want to have those discussions, they're likely better served having them in another community that supports those discussions.
Now that doesn't mean I want to kick out everybody who has ideas or interests beyond gaming and who want to talk about them - it just means that when they come here, they should know that we're going to be talking about gaming, and if, from time to time, they want to talk with some of there D&D or Magic community friends about most things off-topic we have a place for that too. But if they want to talk about politics or something else that we don't allow, they can step out and go to another community for a while to talk about those, and then pop back in here when they miss their D&D/Magic buds or want to talk gaming. It doesn't seem like that's asking too much of people.
As for the second point, Trevor made the point that this is a game company forum, the purpose of which is to discuss games (mostly our games). We aim for a relatively light-hearted, no higher than PG-13 (movies) or T (video games) level of discussion. Politics and religion are topics charged with opinion and rhetoric that people tend to take very personally. And, the fact of the matter is that we're not talking about potential problems, we're talking about past experience. Every time we've allowed those discussions on these forums, they've been the most moderated topics on the boards. Every time.
To be honest, we'd rather not have to warn and ban people for a topic that has nothing to do with our forums and our products. Our ORCs are busy enough without giving them responsibility over political debates as well.
On Friday of last week a blog post of mine was deleted. The email notice from Wizards indicated I had violated Section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
Since there was no indication in the email of what specifically was the problem, am I correct in concluding the ORC determined the entire post was a violation? If yes, was this because of the topic I selected? Why?
If not, could you please review my blog post (I’m assuming you have access to it as part of the action record) and tell me what portion contained actionable content?
Was it the title? I realize my title choice wasn’t the best, but is a questionable title really sufficient reason to delete an entire blog post?
If not, were one or more sentences or maybe a whole paragraph the issue? If yes, which ones? And why not just delete them in lieu of the entire post?
Seeing an entire blog post get deleted is extremely frustrating, Trevor. I intend to repost the blog, absent whatever it was the ORC objected to, but I’d like to get your take on it first.
Thanks in advance for your time.
Trolling and baiting are against the Code of Conduct
Trevor has already asked that this thread not be used as an excuse to violate the Code of Conduct
Please don't comment on other posters, or bring up old feuds or anything. Let's work hard to keep this thread on target and productive.
Thanks,
Dragonette
ShowI don't want to drive people off, but I do want to make it clear that we are a gaming company, and these forums are for discussions on gaming - more specifically and most often, discussion of our games. Yeah, as a community grows and people in it become comfortable with each other, they generally start having other, more off-topic conversations, and we've tried to provide a place for that. However, we still have to have some rules and guidelines that apply to all the parts of our community. There are other sites and other communities for talking about all those other topics that are off-topic or not allowed in our community. And that's normal. Talking about games in a gaming community and then switching sites to talk politics in a politics community is the average behavior. If we lose people who really want to have political discussions on this site because of those guidelines, that's unfortunate. But if they consistently want to have those discussions, they're likely better served having them in another community that supports those discussions.
Now that doesn't mean I want to kick out everybody who has ideas or interests beyond gaming and who want to talk about them - it just means that when they come here, they should know that we're going to be talking about gaming, and if, from time to time, they want to talk with some of there D&D or Magic community friends about most things off-topic we have a place for that too. But if they want to talk about politics or something else that we don't allow, they can step out and go to another community for a while to talk about those, and then pop back in here when they miss their D&D/Magic buds or want to talk gaming. It doesn't seem like that's asking too much of people.
I have a few questions I am hoping you (Trevor) can answer.
On Friday of last week a blog post of mine was deleted. The email notice from Wizards indicated I had violated Section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
Since there was no indication in the email of what specifically was the problem, am I correct in concluding the ORC determined the entire post was a violation? If yes, was this because of the topic I selected? Why?
If not, could you please review my blog post (I’m assuming you have access to it as part of the action record) and tell me what portion contained actionable content?
Was it the title? I realize my title choice wasn’t the best, but is a questionable title really sufficient reason to delete an entire blog post?
If not, were one or more sentences or maybe a whole paragraph the issue? If yes, which ones? And why not just delete them in lieu of the entire post?
Seeing an entire blog post get deleted is extremely frustrating, Trevor. I intend to repost the blog, absent whatever it was the ORC objected to, but I’d like to get your take on it first.
Thanks in advance for your time.
Trolling and baiting are against the Code of Conduct
I'll put this super plainly for everybody first: Blindly reporting based on identity = harassment. Reporting because you think it violates to CoC = awesome.
The basic core of your blog was that if you didn't like someone or their activity, report all their posts and, in the end, there would be enough wrong in there to get the target actioned in some way. Suggesting that people harass in this way is just as actionable as harassing them yourself, so the blog was pulled.
That doesn't mean we can't talk about this - feel free to start up another thread in this forum if you'd like. It's doubtful that this is a policy that we'll be able to change any time soon, if at all, but if people have questions about it or constructive critism and suggestions, please share them (but in a conversation for that specific topic).
1) Having a two month break is notable, but not so much that it forgives the recent past. This is about as specific as I'm going to get for our conduct history/time frame issues. In other words, the conduct time is just one of those things that we're not going to be transparent about. Some people would game that system, and we're confident it would do more harm than good to share more details.
My personal feelings aside, I can't really argue with this. Thank you.
The basic core of your blog was that if you didn't like someone or their activity, report all their posts and, in the end, there would be enough wrong in there to get the target actioned in some way. Suggesting that people harass in this way is just as actionable as harassing them yourself, so the blog was pulled.
I don't believe your summary of my blog post matches its content.
However, I do understand that reader interpretation can and does swing wildly from the message an author is trying to send. So I have some work to do before reposting.
Thanks for taking the time to review and respond. I appreciate it.
Earlier today, someone asked why their post had been moderated. I answered with an explanation, and both their question and my post were deleted. Discussion of moderation is not allowed in the threads, that's not the issue. I wasn't warned or banned, presumably since my answer was polite and civil, simply off-topic in a way I'd forgotten wasn't allowed.
My question is:
I didn't get a notification of the content being deleted. Like, at all. If I hadn't gone back to the thread, I wouldn't have known my post had been moderated. Shouldn't that kind of thing get an indication, even if it's not worth a "warning"?
My question is:
I didn't get a notification of the content being deleted. Like, at all. If I hadn't gone back to the thread, I wouldn't have known my post had been moderated. Shouldn't that kind of thing get an indication, even if it's not worth a "warning"?
You won't get an email if there was no warn or any other action, but we should still be posting in the thread that some kind of action was taken if it's in the public forums. Could you reply or PM me with the details - what forum/thread it was in and about what time you posted it up?
I also removed some posts that were just some of the back and forth that I don't want in this thread.
My question is:
I didn't get a notification of the content being deleted. Like, at all. If I hadn't gone back to the thread, I wouldn't have known my post had been moderated. Shouldn't that kind of thing get an indication, even if it's not worth a "warning"?
You won't get an email if there was no warn or any other action, but we should still be posting in the thread that some kind of action was taken if it's in the public forums. Could you reply or PM me with the details - what forum/thread it was in and about what time you posted it up?
I also removed some posts that were just some of the back and forth that I won't to not have in this thread.
There was a posting in the thread that some content had been removed. There was just no indication to me that my content had been part of the problem, or any way for me to know that my content was removed (or which content was removed) without checking for all of my previous posts manually and remembering that I'd said something in the middle there.
That just seemed.... surprising. Which is why I asked.
Thing is... there doesn't appear to be anything missing from my post and I have no idea what kind of hatespeech I'd been using? I don't mind him editing it if I was out of line but it kinda feels like he didn't change anything and it looks kinda weird now. Or my memory is just bad.
Can you see what he changed? It's in here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I PMd Loki about it this morning but he hasn't responded so far.
Hello Trevor,
It is about [Incident: 111102-000249].
1) As the emails they send us changed when we get suspended or was it a mistake?
2) If the email as indeed changed, where in it are we supposed to write our questions to CS?
3) Regarding the incident, I didn't critic que ORC, I was only making a joke about the OP of that thread. I agree I used the ORC's post for a joke, but it was all in good fun. Did I really do anything wrong?
It makes me wonder if:
a) the ORC is a bit thin skinned
b) if we have to pretend the posts of ORCs do not exist yet awknowledge their existence at the same time, in a orwellian fashion
c) it raises questions about the ORC being familiar with the subject of the thread.
4) Within the same hour of my post being reported, other posts were also reported, Plusjen above me being one them. Was it the result of mass reporting? I do not need to know the answer, but I raise the question.
Thank you and have a nice day.
1 & 2) I didn't see any huge changes, but there might have been some changes made to the customer contact system that I'm just not seeing. However, if it receive a contact/email you should still be able to reply with questions - I can't see anything on my end where that has changed.
3) You were discussing and/or mocking moderation actions. As we've said before here and elsewhere, that's not okay.
a) Actually this was reported by the CM team (AKA my team) so it had nothing to do with an orc on duty. It was discussing moderation action so we reported it.
b) We definitely don't want you to pretend they don't exist. When an ORC or CM team member comes in and cleans things up or asks you to play nice, hopefully you do read it and note what's been said or what's being asked of you. That doesn't mean that it opens up the thread for conversation on moderation however, because it doesn't. I'm sorry if you feel that's Orwellian or overbearing, but we're not going to change that policy - talking about moderation actions or moderated content is reportable and actionable.
c) Just for completeness sake and addressing this issue - the ORC had nothing to do with it beyond looking into an actioning a post that was reported by the CM team.
4) Mass reporting as discussed before was hunting down posts to report based on the poster. In this case, we were reading the threads and reported the things that we felt were violations. That's not mass reporting - that's normal reporting. So no, it wasn't the result of mass reporting.
Yesterday I had a post edited by Loki, and the following post from him said it was "edited for Hatespeech".
Thing is... there doesn't appear to be anything missing from my post and I have no idea what kind of hatespeech I'd been using? I don't mind him editing it if I was out of line but it kinda feels like he didn't change anything and it looks kinda weird now. Or my memory is just bad.
Can you see what he changed? It's in here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I PMd Loki about it this morning but he hasn't responded so far.
Hey there Pluisjen. The part that was hatespeechy was: "They may have lived a long time ago, but they weren't retarded.'
Loki changed that to, "They may have lived a long time ago, but they weren't idiots. " The context in which you used retarded was a reference to developmentally disabled people. No warn was issued because it was a relatively minor use, but using the word "retarded" in this way is offensive to a good deal of people.
I recently had content removed from the just-closed Mass Reporting thread.
Incident: ---001:001677:43937---
Was this removed as part of your personal review of the thread or was action taken in response to a user report?
Regardless, I'm at a complete loss for why the ORC thought the post constituted baiting.
I'm hoping for a more substantive response than, "Yeah, it seemed like it might be baiting so we removed your post even though the thread was already locked".
Trevor,
I recently had content removed from the just-closed Mass Reporting thread.
Incident: ---001:001677:43937---
Was this removed as part of your personal review of the thread or was action taken in response to a user report?
Regardless, I'm at a complete loss for why the ORC thought the post constituted baiting.
I'm hoping for a more substantive response than, "Yeah, it seemed like it might be baiting so we removed your post even though the thread was already locked".
You were directly calling another community member to the mat, telling them that they did something a certain way and to "own up" to what you perceived their behavior to be. You were verbally (writtenly?) attacking another user and putting your words in their mouth. It seemed like a pretty straight forward example of targeted harassment.
I can see where your intention may have been to respond to an issue or a possible insult - but you made it personal. Getting personal like that is an easy way for something to be reported and actioned on.
You were directly calling another community member to the mat, telling them that they did something a certain way and to "own up" to what you perceived their behavior to be. You were verbally (writtenly?) attacking another user and putting your words in their mouth.
Thanks for responding, Trevor.
I see that the old maxim applies: don't respond to the bait. That's my mistake. I've been around long enough that I shouldn't have made it.
You guys are starting to balance things out when you act to review closed threads. Like Draco mentioned on another thread in this forum, I want to thank you for taking the time to review closed threads and getting things right.
www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting..
Trevor, I was under the impression we were allowed to discuss moderation issues in this thread.
How are we supposed to do that if disagreeing with you results in the ORCs taking action?
I can definitely see their point, but I've touched base with them about it so hopefully we'll see a bit lighter touch in this thread.
Hey there Pluisjen. The part that was hatespeechy was: "They may have lived a long time ago, but they weren't retarded.'
Loki changed that to, "They may have lived a long time ago, but they weren't idiots. " The context in which you used retarded was a reference to developmentally disabled people. No warn was issued because it was a relatively minor use, but using the word "retarded" in this way is offensive to a good deal of people.
Ah, my apologies then. It explains why I didn't notice any difference. English is not my first language and the word isn't really considered offensive here, so I wasn't assuming it'd be an issue to use the literal translation. I'll keep it in mind in the future.
And here's my last bit on the most recent concern over the topic that wasn't immediately closed down. It was a mistake, we've talked about it internally as I've mentioned before, and hopefully we've addressed the issue.
Is there any chance I can get the violation or atleast the permabanned warning removed from my file or something?
Couldn't there have been a better way of putting it, though? I mean, it basically went down like 'hey, there's an issue with our stuff that you accidentally discovered so, you know, we'll ban you forever if you happen to accidentally discover another issue with our stuff or whatever'. The response to TS from CS could have been more clear on the matter instead of just threatening a permaban.
Reading over the response, it doesn't seem too harsh to me, but maybe my business brain is overriding my community brain. We need to be uber clear on these kinds of things and make sure the seriousness is understood to eliminate the chance that this kind of accident happens again. To me, the response was straight forward and stayed away from accusing or finger wagging.
So yeah, we can often soften up responses, but I'm not sure this is one of those situations. I could be wrong, so we'll take a look at it and talk it over back on this end.
Would it be appropriate in this thread to ask you why certain actions were not taken on a current, active thread?
In the words of a Knight of the Cross: "You have chosen... poorly." "
Or is it because I brought up The Last Crusade?
Why was he banned even before his post was deleted? I was in the OTT and noticed that he was banned, then went directly to that thread and saw that post. He told me a few minutes later that that post is why he got banned.
This situation now makes me feel that you have been lying to us for the entire lifespan of this thread. Apparently, if you're a member of a certain group of people, you can/will take a ride on the bannedwagon just for being reported, and that's not right. You have stated that, when reports are filed, an ORC checks on it and determines whether a CoC violation has occured, then takes appropriate action. In this case, the order was "Report, Ban, Delete". Is that the SOP, or is just directed at the OTTers? Because I can tell you right now that it doesn't feel like it's SOP when reports BY OTTers go ignored.
Hello Trevor,
Would it be appropriate in this thread to ask you why certain actions were not taken on a current, active thread?
ZB's suggestion is pretty much perfect. I can't really say much about what was or wasn't done to another user or their account, but a PM is the best place for that kind of question.
This one. As you can tell, even in the original post, I never mentioned a name. Why is it "disruptive" to show my displeasure with a WotC personnel decision that was brought up by someone else?
Or is it because I brought up The Last Crusade?
So this post is just harassing and insulting. Sure, you didn't mention the specific Wizards employee, but that just means that any Wizards employee could stick their name in there. There's nothing constructive in there and it's just mean spirited. There's really no place on our forums for a post like that.
This one isn't for me, but for my buddy Robin_Hoodlum. He was banned today for making the comment "So is heroin" in the "Threadjacking" thread in this forum. I don't agree that it was "promototing illegal activity", but that's not my call, nor is it why I'm writing. What I'd like to know is this:
Why was he banned even before his post was deleted?
Mentioning drugs can often be lumped into the illegal activity group - and this shouldn't be a surprise to any of you regulars at this point. As for why he got the ban before the post was deleted, it looks like that was just hte order it was handled in this time. The post was reviewed and RH's history was looked at before the decision was made.
As to the topic/idea that OTTers are having their reports ignored, this just isn't true. I've looked into the incidents and they are being investigated and acted on just like other reports. I'm sorry if it doesn't appear that way, but I doubt I can convince you of what actions are/aren't being taken and the review process without showing you all the conduct that is reported and is/isn't acted on - and I just can't do that.
Edit: I removed some content in the thread that goes that pushes that line against the code of conduct that we're dancing around in this thread, and I also removed some posts that were more of the back and forth that we are avoiding in this thread.
When something is reported, and we action it, we do check a person's history to determine what level of action to take. This is something that I've mentioned before. A person's warn and ban history does matter when it comes to determining what conduct action we will take.
I've removed more of the back and forth on this topic. I respect that some people disagree with this, and this might be an area of the code of conduct we can clear up at some point in the future, but for now, this is how it is.
So I'm back. I was banhammered for 1 word in a post. 1 gods damned word. Look it up you know you want to. [Incident: 111227-000080] dOEK-whatever-her-name-was could have redacted that one word w/o changing the meaning of the sentance and w/o altering the meaning of the post. Instead she chose to banhammer me for it.
Trevor I know you are trying but your underlings do not care.
BTW; I altered the word in question as I know the filter doesn't... Makes no sense. No it doesn't start with "F" as I know your wondering that as well. No I am not happy with Anti-CS at this moment.
So you didn't use the word, which I'm thankful for, but you did mask it - and there's no doubt what word it was. Using profanity or masking it are against the code of conduct. Your post was reported and actioned for breaking the code of conduct.
While I can understand that you might have thought it was okay, masking and profanity are both covered in the code of conduct and are fairly clear. Just because I make some conduct exceptions in this thread, please don't think that means you can break the code of conduct elsewhere.
Edit: "Jacktard" was not what was seen - **cktard was what was seen. Again, the conclusion most people are going to jump to is the obvious vulgarity.
2nd Edit: I've explained as best as I can why mentioning drugs can be actioned. Even if you mean it as a joke, even if you're not trying to champion drug use - mentioning drugs can get you warned/actioned. Since there's not much more I can say on the topic, I will continue to remove any more back and forth on the topic.
When something is reported, and we action it, we do check a person's history to determine what level of action to take. This is something that I've mentioned before. A person's warn and ban history does matter when it comes to determining what conduct action we will take.
I'm sorry for being thick, but is "conduct action" referring to actual moderation (deletion of post, edit of phrase, etc), or does it only refer to punishment (ban, warn, nothing)? Because I have always thought it was the latter. If that is not the case, I'd appreciate knowing that my conduct is more likely to result in a CoC violation than others'.
When something is reported, and we action it, we do check a person's history to determine what level of action to take. This is something that I've mentioned before. A person's warn and ban history does matter when it comes to determining what conduct action we will take.
I'm sorry for being thick, but is "conduct action" referring to actual moderation (deletion of post, edit of phrase, etc), or does it only refer to punishment (ban, warn, nothing)? Because I have always thought it was the latter. If that is not the case, I'd appreciate knowing that my conduct is more likely to result in a CoC violation than others'.
When I use the phrase "conduct action" I'm referring to anthing from a warn all the way to a permaband.
There are times when I or other CM members are heavily involved/interested in a thread and we remove inflamatory content without warning, but when we do that, you'll see a message from us saying what we've done and why.
When something is reported, and we action it, we do check a person's history to determine what level of action to take. This is something that I've mentioned before. A person's warn and ban history does matter when it comes to determining what conduct action we will take.
I'm sorry for being thick, but is "conduct action" referring to actual moderation (deletion of post, edit of phrase, etc), or does it only refer to punishment (ban, warn, nothing)? Because I have always thought it was the latter. If that is not the case, I'd appreciate knowing that my conduct is more likely to result in a CoC violation than others'.
When I use the phrase "conduct action" I'm referring to anthing from a warn all the way to a permaband.
So it doesn't refer to the moderation itself? Thank you for clearing that up.
As all Groups are part of our community, even private ones, we do peek in from time to time. That doesn't mean we're reporting or actioning anything.
I can tell you that I personally haven't clicked the "report" button while browsing the OTTer group.
Edit: Replying to Communist_Dog in case that wasn't clear.
Why does your policy about not explaining conduct violations to users exist? I've had my posts edited a few times (by you and others), often without understanding WHY it was done. Since you're not allowed to tell me what I did wrong (nor, apparently, am I allowed to question the decision, at least according to mudbunny), how am I supposed to learn what not to do?
If you didn't understand, posting here or sending a PM is the way to go. And an explanation will be returned to you via PM.
[Incident: 111231-000061]
The policy seems to be "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." I've gotten in trouble for using vulgaruty when the filter doesn't pick up a word, and now I'm getting in trouble for allowing the filter to pick something up. I've mentioned this to Trevor before (in this thread, I think). "****" is what ANYTHING becomes through the filter, whether it's four letters long or not. For example, the one-word version of a red Magic Card becomes ****.
Why is it considered "masking" if it goes through the filter, when that's what the filter is there for?
Reason that would be helpful. Recently had a post where I said (paraphrased) "You can still use your horrible racist "term" term in game without an accent" moderated for racist slurs. The original post using the word wasn't moderated until I went through and reported that. After the first pass of moderation through, it looked like I decided to up the racist ante and start dropping N-Bombs.
The only reason I noticed was because I went back through the thread, and saw that my post had been edited, but the others hadn't.
Generally though, haven't been warned/banned for anything that didn't make sense to me. I follow the "The filter will block out words that should be blocked out, and I won't try to hide my use of them" policy.
** Found the thread community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
FWIW I think some sort of official edition war thread would be a better policy than locking those threads. Just some sort of "Go here and talk about that, we don't want to hear it." Sort of thing. A release valve, so we don't have the periodic eruptions.
The policy can be more closely described as they will not discuss it with people other than the specific user, and they will not argue about it in public.
If you didn't understand, posting here or sending a PM is the way to go. And an explanation will be returned to you via PM.
That is not my experience. I have asked, via email to Wizards Customer Service, and via PM to the moderator who made the edit, and have been told each time that their rules prevent them from explaining why my post was inappropriate.
Thus, I am asking here.
I don't particularly care that edits were made (though I disagree with the necessity of some of them). I'm only interesting in understanding why they refuse to explain what was inappropriate in those posts. Seems counterproductive to me.
I have asked, via email to Wizards Customer Service, and via PM to the moderator who made the edit, and have been told each time that their rules prevent them from explaining why my post was inappropriate.
Going to Customer Service was a mistake - they're not the same department, at all.
PMing the moderator who made the edit, or this thread, is the best way to ask.
I have asked, via email to Wizards Customer Service, and via PM to the moderator who made the edit, and have been told each time that their rules prevent them from explaining why my post was inappropriate.
Going to Customer Service was a mistake - they're not the same department, at all.
PMing the moderator who made the edit, or this thread, is the best way to ask.
It may have been a mistake, but it was also the right thing to do. Prior to this thread being created, everytime someone had a question about moderation they were told to take it up with CS. It was the lack of clear and helpful answers going through that channel that caused this thread to be created. And in general it probably is still best to email CS first to try to get an answer out of them before coming here.
Really applaud the steps this thread shows towards transparency and reaching out to the members. Made my day to randomly stumble onto this.
**Edit** Hey, is there a way to see past actions taken against me? Now I'm curious.
PMing the moderator who made the edit, or this thread, is the best way to ask.
Not quite true. In my experience, very, VERY few of the mods will actually answer PMs. Trevor will. This thread and PMing Trevor tend to be the best way to get answers.
**Edit** Hey, is there a way to see past actions taken against me? Now I'm curious.
Go to the Customer Service link at the bottom of the page and click on the tab labled "My Stuff" (IIRC). Trevor gave instructions within the first 100 posts or so of this thread.
Regardless of the filters posters are always expected to follow the Code of Conduct. The filters are not there to permit people to violate the Code and then expect the filters to take care of it. Filters are a limited technology, are not ever perfect. This is why we have human moderators.
So you should not count on the filter to clean up what you say. You should try to use appropriate words in the first place. The purpose of the filters is to try to keep the most obvious stuff out of the forums. But if the filters fail, any inappropriate content will be actioned in a manner according to how the moderators are trained.
Hope that clears that up
Dragonette
So you should not count on the filter to clean up what you say. You should try to use appropriate words in the first place. The purpose of the filters is to try to keep the most obvious stuff out of the forums. But if the filters fail, any inappropriate content will be actioned in a manner according to how the moderators are trained.
Hope that clears that up
Dragonette
Sadly, it doesn't clear mine up. The filter succeeded, changed the word to "****"... and I got hit with masking.
Because an empty space would be misleading. Fact is, you said A THING, the intertoobz have replaced that thing with stars - but the objection is still to the saying of THE THING, even if an intermediary made it invisible BEFORE a human intervened.
Whatever man, this thread isn't here to sit and argue back and forth about it. A question was asked, all I tried to do was offer some further clarification as to why the previous answer didn't appear to fully address it, and those of us who are interested will wait for another official answer. Maybe it will line up with what you just said and maybe it won't, and either way that's fine, but I'll wait to hear it from someone that can speak in an official capacity rather than a random poster.
why have the filter at all if posting the actual word or having it filtered out are both equal violations?
The filter does not exist to protect the swearer from the consequences of his behavior. It's there to protect everyone else from the consequences of the swearer's behavior.
Why not simply remove the word entirely and leave an empty space?
How would that change the fact that the person attempted to swear? The filter did its job by preventing the swear from being seen. That doesn't change the fact that the person who tried to swear was still violating the Code of Conduct.
So you should not count on the filter to clean up what you say. You should try to use appropriate words in the first place. The purpose of the filters is to try to keep the most obvious stuff out of the forums. But if the filters fail, any inappropriate content will be actioned in a manner according to how the moderators are trained.
Hope that clears that up
Dragonette
Sadly, it doesn't clear mine up. The filter succeeded, changed the word to "****"... and I got hit with masking.
Hi draco1119
I looked up your specific incident. It was a case of masking. What you posted wasn't just a bunch of stars, there was a word before and letters after the stars which made it very clear what you were trying to say.
Here is an example: Let's pretend that "jazz dancing" is considered vulgar because of the "dance" part of the phrase. Typing "jazz ****ing" is going to be considered masking, which is essentially what you did in the incident you mentioned.
So you're not really damned if you do, damned if you don't. You're not supposed to mask vulgarity. If it is clear to the reader what vulgarity was intended then you're going to get warned for it, even if there are stars in it.
Hopefully that clears that up
Dragonette
So my friend Robin_Hoodlum got a ride on the banned wagon over some stupid crap, and they sent him this...
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access Wizards Community until 12/31/2011. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
It is past 12/31/2011 and Hoodsie still doesn't have access to his account. Note that the e-mail response says will no longer be able to access Wizards Community until 12/31/2011. It doesn't say "after" or "around", it quite specifically says "until". That means that access should have been restored on 12/31/2011.
What is the excuse for this?
Hi,
I alerted the moderators to the issue, and he has been unbanned. We apologize for the delay. In the future if someone's suspension is not lifted on the date from the email, the person can reply to the email where he was informed of the suspension and let us know about it.
Keep in mind that suspensions are not lifted at any particular time on the day scheduled. A suspension that ends on 01/01/12 may not be processed until 11:59PM Pacific time.
However, we are working on making sure the suspensions are lifted by the end of the day cited in the suspension email, and again, I'm sorry for any delay.
Dragonette
You can report anything that you feel is offensive, and the moderators will look into it. However they will always adhere to our guidelines regarding masking. So you won't be able to automatically get someone in trouble simply by reporting a post with **** in it.
Hope that clarifies things
Dragonette
Would I be in trouble for using the F word with "ing" at the end? Cause the filter only catches the word letters of the F word, as demonstrated here: ****ing.
Hi Ressurrection_Man,
Yeah, that's an example of something that would likely get warned for as masking, so I would suggest avoiding it. Things depend on context of course, but it's best to avoid problems.
Dragonette
[You can report anything that you feel is offensive, and the moderators will look into it. However they will always adhere to our guidelines regarding masking. So you won't be able to automatically get someone in trouble simply by reporting a post with **** in it.
Hope that clarifies things
Dragonette
So to make sure we understand this correctly, masking is when the censored word is obvious to the reader, but censored cases where any number of words fit the bill is not? So jack**** would be masking but saying person X is a **** would not be (ok obviously that would be a personal attack, but you get the idea)?
Obviously the point isn't to try and get around the CoC or anything, and I understand not using certain words to begin with, but we do see **** or
or all the time on the forums so it is good to be able to understand which are or are not acceptable.[You can report anything that you feel is offensive, and the moderators will look into it. However they will always adhere to our guidelines regarding masking. So you won't be able to automatically get someone in trouble simply by reporting a post with **** in it.
Hope that clarifies things
Dragonette
So to make sure we understand this correctly, masking is when the censored word is obvious to the reader, but censored cases where any number of words fit the bill is not? So jack**** would be masking but saying person X is a **** would not be (ok obviously that would be a personal attack, but you get the idea)?
Obviously the point isn't to try and get around the CoC or anything, and I understand not using certain words to begin with, but we do see **** or
Hey bone_naga,
Sorry, I really can't get more specific than my post which you quoted, because everything depends on overall context. In *most* cases just **** is not going to be actioned, but there can always be situations where the context is such that it might. Just posting "This new book is ****" probably won't get actioned, but to be safe you may just want to say "This book is not very good, this book is bad, I don't like this book" or similar. But as you pointed out, you can also get warned for something for being harassment or trolling, even if the individual words aren't particularly bad by themselves.
So the best I can do is "probably, in most cases, yes, what you describe is true." But that's not absolute and you can't be going back to this post and say "But Dragonette said!!!" if you get a warn for something. Your best bet to discuss a particular warn is to reply to the warn email and ask specific questions. The emails are absolutely read by the people who need to read them.
So hoping this helps some,
Dragonette
I had to delete some content. As per Trevor's previous and numerous requests, let's keep things appropriate and polite here.
Thanks,
Dragonette
Sorry, I really can't get more specific than my post which you quoted, because everything depends on overall context. In *most* cases just **** is not going to be actioned, but there can always be situations where the context is such that it might. Just posting "This new book is ****" probably won't get actioned, but to be safe you may just want to say "This book is not very good, this book is bad, I don't like this book" or similar. But as you pointed out, you can also get warned for something for being harassment or trolling, even if the individual words aren't particularly bad by themselves.
So the best I can do is "probably, in most cases, yes, what you describe is true." But that's not absolute and you can't be going back to this post and say "But Dragonette said!!!" if you get a warn for something. Your best bet to discuss a particular warn is to reply to the warn email and ask specific questions. The emails are absolutely read by the people who need to read them.
No, that's fine. I didn't mean to put you on the spot and make you the authority on all future posts or anything. I just ask because several people here have gotten in trouble for masking even when they didn't intend to do it, and the guidance given wasn't entirely clear. Regardless of what people say about just avoiding such words entirely, when you see **** in plenty of forum posts not to mention having a
icon that effectively serves the same purpose, it does sort of muddy the waters. I do of course realize that individual circumstances are going to vary but have some sort of general guideline is better than nothing.EDIT: And just to clarify, I did find your answer to be sufficiently clear guidance, thanks.
Going back to this for a min. Who can I complain to for this one? [Incident: 111230-000076]
Thunder_Dragonbane posted: ...To shoot it untill there is nothing left.
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access [platform] until [insert date]. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
My response was this: So are you going to bother to tell me how long this ban is? Or should I guess? Obviously I'm back now but what the hell? Your mods are really lacking in comunication skills and lets face it Trevor and I had a conversation regarding your filter and masking last week as well. As far as I'm conserned both banhammers were unwarrented.
Hi Thunder_Dragonbane,
We're very sorry that the email you got did not have all the information in it. Sometimes mistakes happen and we're working on making sure that omissions like this don't happen. Your complaint has been given to the correct person, so no worries there.
Sorry again for the inconvenience,
Dragonette
Trevor wanted me to let you all know that he won't be in until tomorrow, so if you've sent him PMs or have anything he needs to look at personally it won't be until tomorrow.
As for HATER's question:
Err.. what?
But you guys just got finished saying that "****" is "masking", specifically, masking swear words or vulgarity, and "masking" is a CoC violation, thus it is "actionable".
Now it seems as though you are saying the moderators may actually look at a post in context and decide that "****" isn't masking.
And I know that is simply not true. Trevor just said a few days ago that context doesn't matter in the least.
Do you guys need a few days to get your stories straight?
I wasn't able to find that post when I looked back through this thread, could you link me to it? That would be great
Dragonette
I'll be posting up a couple replies to specific posts in a minute.
It is a forum user's responsibility to know and abide by the code of conduct. Inappropriate language and masking are covered in the code of conduct. The filter, as a piece of technology, does not excuse someone from following the code of conduct.
If you type in a profanity, and it's filtered so that ***'s remain, your post can still be reported and actioned. If you type in profanity and purposefully get around the filter by misspelling, including symbols, or some other work-around, it is still reportable and actionable. If someone types in profanity and it somehow gets through the filter, the post can be reported and actioned.
There's an easy way to get past all this though: don't type in the profanity in the first place. It's not allowed, and there are plenty of other words that are acceptable and can get your point across. If you're unsure or worried, then preview your post to find out if something was filtered.
Lastly, sometimes people will use *** or
in a joking way when there was no profanity or no real insult/harassment intended. Though it doesn't happen very often, even this can be reported/actioned, but in those cases it's usually harassment or the reference to profanity was obvious.If you're still around, Trevor, I have a question for you:
Why does your policy about not explaining conduct violations to users exist? I've had my posts edited a few times (by you and others), often without understanding WHY it was done. Since you're not allowed to tell me what I did wrong (nor, apparently, am I allowed to question the decision, at least according to mudbunny), how am I supposed to learn what not to do?
Talking about conduct actions in the forums often leads to heated debates, name calling, and other harassment so we avoid that.
If your post is reported and conduct action is taken, there will be a record of that and you will receive an email and incident with information on why the post was moderated. Sometimes, CM staff or ORCs (often at the request of CM staff) will just remove some content in a post without reporting. We try to leave individual notes for these kinds of things, but sometimes it's just untenable - especially when we're editing out things in several posts and are short on time.
If you ever have a question about a post that was edited/actioned, you can send me a PM or drop in here with your question and I, Monica, or Quentin will do our best to find out what happened and let you know.
instead, is that masking? For that matter, would saying 'f-bomb' be masking? Obviously this should be some pretty cut and dry stuff, but I'm asking because it isn't. Like, not even a little. I've been here for a few years and I've seen quite a few people (and been one myself) use words that the filter picks up, the censored emoticon, some not curse version of a curse word, etc, etc profusely and not been actioned. Just lookin' for a little clarity - if it's to be found. Oh yeah, if
can be taken as masking, I suggest removing it lest someone use it for what most people would think it's for and find themselves on the wrong end of the CoC.I often use random strings of symbols or type my own stars... it would be kinda annoying if I could get modded when I'm not even typing anything offensive.
Can you guys see the difference between something the filter picks up and something the user puts in himself?
ETA, I do notice it didn't hit the words I typed in, but I am willing to bet those (being ones that are known to trip profanity filters) are likely specific exceptions. But given that D&D character names are often made up words, I have to wonder if I couldn't get nailed if I accidentally made a character name with one of the offwnsive strings in it.
I'm going to take another crack and clarifying this stuff
The example you give of Yamashita or Scunthorpe: you would only get warned for Yama****a or S****horpe if those wild cards could stand for other things which combined with "Yama" and "a" or "S" and "horpe". So let's pretend that Yamatotea was a bad word, then Yama****a could be warned for masking. It would also depend upon the context. Context always matters in these things.
So the other example given of posting **** or using
, that would only be warned if you can easily tell what the intended word is.Context always matters. If you report someone just for having
or a series of asterisks in his post and it doesn't get actioned that means that the context was not such that a warn was warranted. If you think you've been given a warn for masking that you believe was in error you can reply to the email that tells you about the warn and explain why you think it was in error. Those emails are always looked at. You may not always get the answer that you like, but every complaint is investigated to make sure the action taken was correct according to training and policy.
If you disagree with a portion of the Code of Conduct or a policy, you can send in an email to discuss that as well.
Hope that clears things up. If it doesn't you may need to try contacting us via the help site for better explanations, because I think that's as clear as I can be on the topic.
Here's the link for anyone who doesn't have it: wizards.custhelp.com/ Click the "Email Us" tab, and you have to be logged in to use that function.
Dragonette
I'm just wondering how "****" is masking, but sometimes actionable and sometimes not, depending on context and usage, yet saying anyting about drugs is immediately actionable, no matter of context or usage?
Those are two different policies, so they have nothing to do with each other. If you have questions about that one, then you may need to use the help site.
Dragonette
Context always matters.
I'm going to remember this the next time it doesn't. ;)
On a more serious note, thanks for the response. You did exactly what you set out to do as far as my concerns are ... uhh ... concerned. I thank you for your answers.
Quick question, Trevor: on Friday I reported a post. Twice. The thread has since been poofed. I checked My Stuff to see if there was some sort of notification about action taken in regard to my reports and there's nothing there about them at all. It's like I never reported the post. Is that SOP when threads are deleted? Should they be telling us that the thread was deleted so that we know they took a look at our concern but there's nothing to do now since the thread was removed? As it stands it looks like my issue was just totally ignored. Twice. Thanks for any light you can shed.
I also reported the exact same post he is referring to.
Why was the "Plu is signing off" thread locked? Why would a community lead ask that it be closed (accoring to the message left)?
The thread was started by a MUP of a banned person saying he was the banned person. Trevor didn't notice this when he originally moved it at first because of all the other stuff that we're dealing with on the forums today. Once we realized this, we decided to simply close the thread. Normally such a thread would have been completely removed.
If you're banned you're not allowed to create another user name and come into the forums and post that you are the banned person, even if your post is to say goodbye.
Hope that clears that up.
If you have a beef with moderation, you know the proper place for that, which is the "Email US" tab on the help site.
I also removed some content for unnecessary roughness. Trevor's already covered that he doesn't want back and forth in this thread and simply saying cranky things about Wizards for its own sake isn't going to be tolerated here.
If you have a beef with moderation, you know the proper place for that, which is the "Email US" tab on the help site.
Wasn't this thread created to deal with moderation problems?
I also removed some content for unnecessary roughness. Trevor's already covered that he doesn't want back and forth in this thread and simply saying cranky things about Wizards for its own sake isn't going to be tolerated here.
If you have a beef with moderation, you know the proper place for that, which is the "Email US" tab on the help site.
Wasn't this thread created to deal with moderation problems?
It was created to ask specific questions about specific moderation issues. Not to simply take swipes at Wizards or the moderators
That's the only kind of content I have removed.Perhaps I should have been more clear though. If you have a beef with moderation IN GENERAL, then you need to use the form. Simply engaging in back and forth in this thread condemning moderation in general is NOT the topic of this thread.
Though Trevor can correct me if I'm wrong.
Dragonette
snip
I think it probably just meant disruption, but after reading the post I'd say it at least gives you a little better idea of why it was removed instead of just citing disruption and leaving it at that (and without reposting removed material). So I'd say just chalk that up as a win since it's explained more clearly than the generic messages we usually see and leave it at that.
EDIT: Removed a quoted post that had been deleted, but I'll leave the reply unless Trevor or Dragonette feel otherwise.
I supose it could have been removed by the poster. Could you PM the details of the post? Your inicident in My Stuff shouldn't disappear, we don't delete customer contacts like that. Anyway, PM the details and I'll look into it.
I can't speak for Z_B, but when I tried to report that same post, it didn't disappear from the customer service tab, it's just that after multiple attempts to report it, it never showed up in the first place. Is there some glitch where reports don't go through if the thread has already been locked (again, not speaking for Z_B but my attempts to report it were after it was locked)?
I supose it could have been removed by the poster. Could you PM the details of the post? Your inicident in My Stuff shouldn't disappear, we don't delete customer contacts like that. Anyway, PM the details and I'll look into it.
PM sent. Thanks!
I can't speak for Z_B, but when I tried to report that same post, it didn't disappear from the customer service tab, it's just that after multiple attempts to report it, it never showed up in the first place. Is there some glitch where reports don't go through if the thread has already been locked (again, not speaking for Z_B but my attempts to report it were after it was locked)?
I reported it once before the thread was locked (I ... uhh ... actually responded to it as well - though I kept myself in check ;)) and once after since there was obviously ORC activity and my report had yet to be addressed. I mean, I get that the thread was locked but people can still read it. Anyhoo, I did not check My Stuff before yesterday so I have no idea whether it was there and then gone or not. For all I know it just may not have shown up.
If it's SOP to let reports on locked threads slide due to pending investigation by ORCs or VCLs or whatever, I think that needs to change. Like I said, people can still read the stuff even if they can't respond to it. This is the second time I've reported a post that was in a thread that was eventually locked to no avail. It's somewhat disconcerting.
According to my inbox, it's a disruption of the forums to start a new thread in the Off-Topic-Tavern concerning the hypothetical politician continuing to execute the duties of his or her office from the confines of a prison cell.
Despite the base premise, this wasn't actually a political thread seeing as I wasn't talking about any politican, real or imagined, just a general concept with a question.
So if I could get some guidance on what, precisely, made it a disruption (as well as just what it's supposed to have been disrupting), that would be greatly appreciated.
Alternatively, if my thread would have been dandy as candy in 4e General if I had pre-faced it with the line "so I have an idea for a game and I want to bounce an idea off you guys...", hearing as such would be appreciated as well.
I supose it could have been removed by the poster. Could you PM the details of the post? Your inicident in My Stuff shouldn't disappear, we don't delete customer contacts like that. Anyway, PM the details and I'll look into it.
PM sent. Thanks!
I also sent you two PMs approximately 48 hours ago, with a request that you respond. Thus far, you have not...
I supose it could have been removed by the poster. Could you PM the details of the post? Your inicident in My Stuff shouldn't disappear, we don't delete customer contacts like that. Anyway, PM the details and I'll look into it.
PM sent. Thanks!
I also sent you two PMs approximately 48 hours ago, with a request that you respond. Thus far, you have not...
I sent one probably shortly before ZB did, although I imagine the DnDNext buzz may be consuming some of his time.
I supose it could have been removed by the poster. Could you PM the details of the post? Your inicident in My Stuff shouldn't disappear, we don't delete customer contacts like that. Anyway, PM the details and I'll look into it.
PM sent. Thanks!
I also sent you two PMs approximately 48 hours ago, with a request that you respond. Thus far, you have not...
I sent one probably shortly before ZB did, although I imagine the DnDNext buzz may be consuming some of his time.
That is definitely the case for all of us at the moment. Also, Trevor is a bit under the weather today, unfortunately, so please be patient.
Thanks.
Clarification please!
According to my inbox, it's a disruption of the forums to start a new thread in the Off-Topic-Tavern concerning the hypothetical politician continuing to execute the duties of his or her office from the confines of a prison cell.
Despite the base premise, this wasn't actually a political thread seeing as I wasn't talking about any politican, real or imagined, just a general concept with a question.
So if I could get some guidance on what, precisely, made it a disruption (as well as just what it's supposed to have been disrupting), that would be greatly appreciated.
Alternatively, if my thread would have been dandy as candy in 4e General if I had pre-faced it with the line "so I have an idea for a game and I want to bounce an idea off you guys...", hearing as such would be appreciated as well.
Hypothetical politics or politicians are still political conversations. If it's in the context of a D&D setting, it may be allowed as I've mentioned earlier, but it's also very likely to be reportable and actionable.
I would need the incident number to look into it and get more info on this one.
Okay, as to a thread that was reported but no apparent action taken on the user. The one that I looked into (and I may have missed something so please if I did remind me and/or give me some more info) was a user saying a list was lame.
Saying something is lame isn't really harassing or a disruption. It can be in the right context - for example if a person constantly says everything a certain poster or group of posters does is lame, that can be considered harassment. Just like saying "That's a bad idea" isn't harassment or actionable, saying "That is a lame idea" isn't actionable either. Again, context matters so there are some cases where what seems like normal language could be part of a harassing pattern.
I think that addresses the issue that I got PM'd about, but if there was something I missed, please remind me.
Oh, and I removed some posts that were just harassment and putting claims/ideas/words on the CM team that just aren't true.
I think that addresses the issue that I got PM'd about, but if there was something I missed, please remind me.
Not even close, buddy. Not. Even. Close.
There is a PM from ZB and one from BN sent last Tuesday and/or Wednesday, plus one from me sent last Monday that are all about the same thread. The reference number that I mentioned to you that I just listed "trolling" as the reason may have been the one you looked into, but I doubt it.
There is also another PM that I sent to you on the same day (last Monday) about a completely seprarate issue that is upsetting me more the longer a response is delayed.
And, while I'm thinking of it - you may want to delete WotC_Huscarl from your CM Team thread at the top of the page.
I think that addresses the issue that I got PM'd about, but if there was something I missed, please remind me.
Not even close. That may or may not have been contained in the same post we were referring to (I don't think it was, likely you came across another post by the same person but I could be wrong) but it certainly was not the content we objected to. I just sent a PM with the phrase that we meant to help clarify the issue.
I know the thread was closed down at first, but I'm hoping the comment has been removed at this point (couldn't find the incident related to it so I couldn't track down the thread). If you guys point me in the direction of the thread and that stuff is still there, I'll make sure that bit of harassment is taken care of. As for what conduct actions were or were not made against another user - I can't talk about that bit.
On to the second point. A couple of you mentioned that you haven't seen incidents in your My Stuff for things you've reported in the forums. There is a very small chance that when a conduct is reported, it doesn't get turned into an incident in your My Stuff. It's a glitch we're aware of and working on. However, it does still create a conduct report that the ORCs record and action on. So while you may not get an incident on something you've reported in the community (though you often will) we're still aware of it and we're still going to look into it.
On a final note - I'm sorry for not being in here as much as I was when we started this thread. Things have been pretty busy lately, and that combined with the fact that Steve isn't with us anymore and I've been sick aren't helping things. I will always do my best to get back in here and address some of the issues. If I get something wrong, or I miss something, please let me know. But also know that it may not be as quickly as you would like. There are three of us (four counting Michael Robles on the Magic side) and our plates are often full. Again, we won't be ignoring you or this thread - but we may not get back in here as fast as you would like sometimes. This is my apologizing in advance for those times as well.
Obviously it's not a pressing issue so I don't expect anything immediate in the way of a response.
The thread I reported the mentioned post in was deleted. My main concern was that I received no notification about my report whatsoever - no email, no record in 'My Stuff' and, therefore, no way for me to ask about it. I'm wondering still whether or not this is common practice where deleted threads are concerned.
Obviously it's not a pressing issue so I don't expect anything immediate in the way of a response.
When you report a conduct issue in the community, the two systems are linked so it's supposed to create an incident in your "My Stuff" as well. Unfortunately, while this happens most times, there is a glitch where that incident isn't created every once in a while. The conduct is still reported and the ORCs still look into it, but in those cases you won't see anything in your history. It's something we're aware of and it's on the list of fixes, but I couldn't tell you where it is in the priority.
I know the thread was closed down at first, but I'm hoping the comment has been removed at this point (couldn't find the incident related to it so I couldn't track down the thread). If you guys point me in the direction of the thread and that stuff is still there, I'll make sure that bit of harassment is taken care of.
This should help:
Incident #: 120106-000534
It's a different post than the one to which ZB and BN refer. But it does quote, then alter/"ffix" theirs.
I am not sure what I did wrong. I only talked about previous D&D books that I would like to see as modules in 5e. I didn't go into details about sexual activities or promote illegal activities.
This is the email I was sent:
Show
Hello,
In our online communities we strive to create a safe and fun environment for all of our members. We have set up a Code of Conduct to be as fair as possible. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here .
In participating in our games and services you will encounter thousands of other members who come from different backgrounds and have many different experiences. Certain languages, information and images may not be offensive to you, but may have an effect on someone else.
We found content you posted on Wizards Community that violates section Two, Sexually explicit and Four, Illegal activities, of the Code of Conduct.
TruenamerX wrote:
"The discussions about art made me think about the 3e Book of Vile Darkness and 3.5's Book of Exalted Deeds, who were both labelled as "mature".
The modular aspect of 5e D&D's "next" "iteration" creates an environment where some mature only modules can exist.
Drugs, prostitution, ****, incest, ****, sexual perversions deserve a D&D treatment and I am sure this would be a refreshing product for mature D&D fans."
We have taken the necessary steps to remove this content. Further violations may result in deactivation or termination of your account. We appreciate your cooperation.
Hello,
In our online communities we strive to create a safe and fun environment for all of our members. We have set up a Code of Conduct to be as fair as possible. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here .
In participating in our games and services you will encounter thousands of other members who come from different backgrounds and have many different experiences. Certain languages, information and images may not be offensive to you, but may have an effect on someone else.
We found content you posted on Wizards Community that violates section Two, Sexually explicit and Four, Illegal activities, of the Code of Conduct.
TruenamerX wrote:
"The discussions about art made me think about the 3e Book of Vile Darkness and 3.5's Book of Exalted Deeds, who were both labelled as "mature".
The modular aspect of 5e D&D's "next" "iteration" creates an environment where some mature only modules can exist.
Drugs, prostitution, ****, incest, ****, sexual perversions deserve a D&D treatment and I am sure this would be a refreshing product for mature D&D fans."
We have taken the necessary steps to remove this content. Further violations may result in deactivation or termination of your account. We appreciate your cooperation.
As noted a few times in this thread, discussion of illegal activities is against the CoC, especially ****, incest, ****, and drugs. Bringing up those topics is going to get actioned.
Howdy TruenamerX,
As noted a few times in this thread, discussion of illegal activities is against the CoC, especially ****, incest, ****, and drugs. Bringing up those topics is going to get actioned.
This make very little sense. You are saying that: 1) We can't talk about the content of the Book of Vile Darkness, a D&D product, on the D&D forums. 2) We can't ask the designers that some 5e modules contain some mature material, like D&D did in the past.
Are we allowed to talk about the content of the BoVD? Can we ask that some 5e products have mature content?
Besides, I wasn't promoting illegal activities. That is what the CoC is talking about (maybe you should change it). I was suggesting content for 5e products. This is not against the CoC.
As for products published by Wizards of the Coast like the Book of Vile Darkness, these are labeled as being intended for mature audiences. The forums have a different set of conduct guidelines than our editorial policy because we cannot enforce a "mature audiences" only mandate on the forums, nor would we want to.
So, in short, no, the more mature aspects of products like the BoVD are not viable topics for discussion on the forums.
You can request that there be mature audiences only products for the next iteration of D&D, but please do so without getting into specifics.
I've removed some posts that weren't conducive to the purpose of this thread.
Thanks.
I just ask for mature content for some modules of 5e without naming anything specific.
When you report a conduct issue in the community, the two systems are linked so it's supposed to create an incident in your "My Stuff" as well. Unfortunately, while this happens most times, there is a glitch where that incident isn't created every once in a while. The conduct is still reported and the ORCs still look into it, but in those cases you won't see anything in your history. It's something we're aware of and it's on the list of fixes, but I couldn't tell you where it is in the priority.
Well it's good to know the reports still go through. On a side note, I've noticed that whenever that glitch occurs, it continues with that same item. So if I try to report the same thing three times (because I'm not seeing the report confirmation show up) it doesn't show up any of those times, but if I report a separate item once, that one will show up. I don't know if that information is useful in fixing it, I just figured I'd offer it up.
Well it's good to know the reports still go through. On a side note, I've noticed that whenever that glitch occurs, it continues with that same item. So if I try to report the same thing three times (because I'm not seeing the report confirmation show up) it doesn't show up any of those times, but if I report a separate item once, that one will show up. I don't know if that information is useful in fixing it, I just figured I'd offer it up.
Just wanted to chime in sayin' I noticed the same thing. Uhh ... cuz when it's a one person thing it may be a fluke but when more see it it maye be ... more or something.
I think we have been about as clear on this subject as possible. If you have further questions about these specific illegal/disruptive topics you'll need to continue the conversation via the help site/Email US.
Click HERE and log in same as you would log into our forums, then choose the "Email Us" tab.
Thanks,
Monica
Hello there!
One of my friends got a temp-ban for saying this (incident # 120124-000575):
Show
The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 3. Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
Resurrection_Man posted: Word on the street is that people can chew gum and walk at the same time
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access The Wizards Community until 01/25/12. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
Resurrection_Man posted: Word on the street is that people can chew gum and walk at the same time
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access The Wizards Community until 01/25/12. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
As noted in this post, the D&D Next section will be seeing a slightly heavier hand from moderation, specifically...
"For our part, we here at Wizards are going to be more strict and active when it comes to these edition warring comments. Anything that attacks or belittles an edition, its players, or a play style is what we're looking to shut down."
Please remember the purpose of this thread, folks.
(oops posted in the wrong thread)
Hello there!
One of my friends got a temp-ban for saying this (incident # 120124-000575):ShowThe Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 3. Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
Resurrection_Man posted: Word on the street is that people can chew gum and walk at the same time
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access The Wizards Community until 01/25/12. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
I have deleted a couple of posts that weren't relevant to the purpose of the thread.
Thanks.
Howdy folks,
As mentioned further up thread, Trevor is at DDXP at the moment and will be for the rest of the week. The back and forth on the most recent question isn't going to change that.
We will try to have an answer as soon as possible. Please bear with us as things continue to be a bit hectic.
Thanks.
Show
Hello,
The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 2. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling /spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter “testing." You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
Zombie_Babies posted: Oy, I see this constantly and so I have to ask: can someone please, pleaseexplain to me why they play with roosters? Seriously, why do we need the engrain 'don't be a rooster' into the actual rules? Why can't you just, you know, not play with roosters?
And …..
Cuz it's the people that are the problem and no ruleset imaginable will make them less roosters than they are.
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access the Wizards Community until 01/25/12. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
Starting now, any further trolling, off topic, baiting, disruptive content will be dealt with according to normal forum rules. Which means conduct actions with warnings, and possibly bannings (depending on the poster's history and/or the severity of the content).
Please stick to the guidelines for this thread that Trevor has repeatedly set out.
Monica
Si j'écris en français, est-ce que je suis entrain de "masquer"? J'aimerais savoir juste au cas où.
Merci et bonne journée.
You can post in French (or any other language) and it won't be considered masking as long as the word you are posting is not vulgar. If you post a vulgar word in another language, well yes, that is masking.
Having said that: If posters start posting in nothing but other languages in a manner that prevents others from participating in the conversation, this can be ruled as disruptive, depending (as always) on our old friend context.
Hope that clarifies things,
Monica
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I have noticed a lot of improvement in the moderation lately. Over this past week it does seem to be more (not perfect but better) consistent, the reponse seems quick during peak hours, and I was pleasantly surprised to notice that ORCs are posting more than just the generic "You can review the Code of Conduct here, keep your posts polite, respectful, etc etc". In addition to the standard blurb I'm seeing a lot more things like "please don't call people trolls" or "understand that some topics are more sensitive to others". I think this is a positive step and gives not just the modded poster but everyone else that is involved in the conversation more specific information on why action was taken and what type of posts to avoid. Granted, I'm mostly seeing two ORCs doing most of the work so I don't know if this is the result of new policies or just a couple good employees, but either way they should keep it up.
Was the term "sacred cow" modded because of someone's tone or attitude about it, or is there a new policy about use of that term? I don't have an incident number since I wasn't modded there, I'm just curious since I don't recall seeing any announcement or notification that this term would not be acceptable (especially since the first time I heard that term used was by WotC). It's used pretty commonly on the forums so if that is a blanket policy now, it should probably be made known.
And classifying it as hatespeech? Really? Cows?
This is a case of religious sensitivity. There are some religions that hold cows to be sacred animals and as such, the term can be construed as hate speech toward those religions.
Also, I removed a post that wasn't pertinent to the purpose of this thread.
Also, we are human and we do learn new things on a regular basis, including that some terms we've used in the past could be considered offensive.
The reported and potentially offensive material was specifically in reference to the following phrases in referece to "sacred cow."
"killing"
"sacrificing"
"slaughtering"
And similar terms and phrases.
Regarding the report post button issue, we're aware of it and it is being looked at as we speak. I don't have a timeline on when it will be resolved, however.
Hey all. Trevor is aware of the situation (and if he is not, he will be made aware as soon as he gets to a computer this week). As such, continuing to post on the topic in the thread only increases the likelihood that you post something that would be considered disruptive.
Trevor has asked that I close this thread down for now. He'll be in later to go over the questions and reply.
Monica
(oops posted in the wrong thread)
Hello there!
One of my friends got a temp-ban for saying this (incident # 120124-000575):ShowThe Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 3. Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
Resurrection_Man posted: Word on the street is that people can chew gum and walk at the same time
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access The Wizards Community until 01/25/12. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
I'm back! And here's why I was gone:ShowHello,
The Wizards Community account associated with this email address has been deactivated for violation of the Code of Conduct, specifically section 2. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling /spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter “testing." You can find our Code of Conduct by clicking here . The violating content can be found below.
Zombie_Babies posted: Oy, I see this constantly and so I have to ask: can someone please, pleaseexplain to me why they play with roosters? Seriously, why do we need the engrain 'don't be a rooster' into the actual rules? Why can't you just, you know, not play with roosters?
And …..
Cuz it's the people that are the problem and no ruleset imaginable will make them less roosters than they are.
As a result, this account will no longer be able to access the Wizards Community until 01/25/12. This action has been taken in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Thank you for understanding our position in this matter. You may contact us with any questions regarding this issue.
Let me save you some trouble on that last one. We make mistakes. I don't think we ever claimed that we didn't. We have guidelines and procedures in place and gobs of training to make sure we're as consistent as possible, but yeah, those mistakes still happen. They're also a tiny part of a percentage when looking at the whole of conduct and community interactions. If I ever gave you guys the idea that we were perfect, or that we should be, I retract that right now.
But back onto this thread. It accomplished some good. Sure it was derailed a few times and sure some people used it as a podium for whatever cause they wanted to push at other times (hey I get it, we get passionate about the things that we care about - who doesn't?), but in the end I think it highlighted some things about the code of conduct and gave everybody a good look at what some think is and isn't violating that code of conduct. However, this experiment has come to an end. I'll be closing it down and stickying it so people can peak in from time to time if they need a reminder or if there's something in there they find informative.
Thanks to all who contributed to the thread and did their best to keep it constructive. Maybe we'll look into doing this again at some point.
As a reminder, talking about specific conduct actions on the forums is something can (and often will) be reported and actioned. If you want to discuss a specific conduct action, make sure to respond to the incident you receive, or contact customer service about the issue.