Harsh censorship on forums

[May90]

Okay, let me be direct. I understand that some topics have the potential to turn discussion into flamefest/bashing/hateful rhetoric/etc. However, many threads on those topics having interesting civil discussions are shut down shortly. This is becoming ridiculous: we don't have anything left to discuss, other than US elections, Russia, guns, climate change, physics and a couple more topics, because almost everything else gets under one of forbidden topics and can't be discussed. Take gender identity threads, for example: a lot of them produced very interesting discussions in which many people learned something new - and yet every time they are just shut down in the middle of a discussion, without any warning, anything.

I suggest a new, better approach.
- No topics are forbidden, other than apparent troll/bait posts.
- When people don't behave in a thread, they get infracted.
- When too many people don't behave in a thread, a mod issues a warning that people have to stop, or the thread will be shut down.
- If people keep misbehaving, then and only then a thread is closed.

As of now, it is almost impossible to discuss anything, and I feel strongly discouraged from posting in most threads, because I never know if the thread is going to be closed briefly for whatever reason and my time will be wasted.

---

Anyone else feels the same? Personally, I am getting frustrated with this preemptive moderation, feeling like moving to other forums on which people can actually discuss what they want, as long as they keep it more or less civil.

[Underverse]

I'll second this. A lot of interesting threads have been closed lately with little justification other than it being against the rules (which is arbitrary), despite civil conversation.

I think these solutions are well placed.

[TheDestinatus]

I'm glad that these rules have been implemented. Everyone knows that people ignore the rules anyway, this very thread is just another attempt at circumventing them. MMO champion is a gaming website, its not supposed to be a platform for social soap boxing and the sooner this entire forum is shut down the better. Amongst the WoW players I associate MMO champion is considered WoW's tumblr.

If you are desperate to push your agenda's, whatever they may be then you should go somewhere considered "neutral" ground, like reddit which was purpose built for that kind of discussion and leave the gaming website as a gaming website. Something very wrong with the recent forum posts on a gaming website being primarily social angst rants.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I'm glad that these rules have been implemented. Everyone knows that people ignore the rules anyway, this very thread is just another attempt at circumventing them. MMO champion is a gaming website, its not supposed to be a platform for social soap boxing and the sooner this entire forum is shut down the better. Amongst the WoW players I associate MMO champion is considered WoW's tumblr.

You realize there is an off-topic forum right? That's where that stuff goes.

[TheDestinatus]

You realize there is an off-topic forum right? That's where that stuff goes.

It's only where that stuff goes as long as the rules allow it, and they no longer do.

[Fang7986]

You realize this is a private forum and the people running it can make whatever rules they want

[Endus]

For the most part, the moderation team would love to be able to trim down that "forbidden topics" list. However, there's a reason those topics have gotten onto that list. They're topics which, in our experience, do not produce any constructive discussion, but just turn into two (or more) sides shouting insults and "NO U" type responses at each other, forcing the moderation team to step in repeatedly and heavily to cut down on the flaming and abuse. It's not that these topics shouldn't be discussed; many of us would enjoy productive discussions on those topics. It's entirely down to how those topics go on these specific forums, with our community.

For instance; I love discussing religion and theology. I was one credit short of minoring in Religion, with my first degree. I debated becoming a clergyman for a while, in my youth. I know I can discuss the topic without mocking people's faith and whatnot, but that's unfortunately not how such topics tend to go, here, so it's on "the list".

It's better to see that list as toys that have been taken away because community members keep hitting each other with them, rather than toys we think are dangerous or "bad" in and of themselves. It's not our goal to see how many people we can ban every week, and allowing topics that serve to just make a lot of people angry enough to flame and threaten others or engage in hateful speech of some sort means we have to drag out the banhammers, and if we can avoid doing so by banning the topic, that's "better". Neither option's ideal, and I recognize that. The ideal would be if everyone could be more even-tempered and engage in open, constructive discussion, even if others disagree with their views.

I recognize this can feel unfair to those who DO behave well; see my above comment about really enjoying religious debate. It's a tough choice as to which path is "better", because it's pretty much a Sophie's Choice thing. Two bad options, and no good ones on the table.

Another issue is regarding your proposed "solution"; the central issue with it is that we moderators are volunteers, and it'll happen that I'll poke my head into a thread on Page 3, see that it's "okay" in terms of behaviour even though it's a topic we know is problematic (but not banned, at that point), I'll go to bed, wake up, and the thread is now 52 pages and it went to the Abyss by page 5, and everything after is horrendous. After a couple hours of cleaning and a couple dozen people banned for outrageous behaviour, the thread's finally locked, but the damage is done. If we have that topic on the list so I can just close it at page 3 before it gets that bad, that's "better" from the mod team's perspective. If we were paid, and here 24/7, and could have someone babysit a thread all day, that'd be a different situation.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Imo, we should punish people instead of closing threads. Punish people more harshly.

[Underverse]

I'm glad that these rules have been implemented. Everyone knows that people ignore the rules anyway, this very thread is just another attempt at circumventing them. MMO champion is a gaming website, its not supposed to be a platform for social soap boxing and the sooner this entire forum is shut down the better. Amongst the WoW players I associate MMO champion is considered WoW's tumblr.

If you are desperate to push your agenda's, whatever they may be then you should go somewhere considered "neutral" ground, like reddit which was purpose built for that kind of discussion and leave the gaming website as a gaming website. Something very wrong with the recent forum posts on a gaming website being primarily social angst rants.

You don't have to take a part in the off-topic forums. Your desire to restrict the exchange of ideas between gamers of all sorts - beyond games - is pretty authoritarian. A gaming website has its own merits and drawbacks in terms of the people who involve themselves in discussions here.

[wowaccounttom]

dont forget thread necro'ing ...


as it happened, i replied to an old post without noticing the date and got a warning...

checked the rules, and unless i totally missed it, there is no clear indicative for this warning..

is it consider necro if its an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year? ... either way, time has passed since the original post, even if the topic has remained active...

plenty of threads out there were originally created years ago yet still have posts every once in a while and are not considered necros..... what makes a thread okay to be brought up again?


anyways... as for other censorship, the mods for the most part are okay, but every once in a while their sense of "whatever it is they think they have" causes them to ban accounts just to make themselves feel better......

heck, some mod of a penguin or something like that, that starts with the letter "d" (i think), posted not long ago an extremely "unprofessional" reply saying just "no" when the original post didnt even ask a yes or no question... apparently, mod can troll politics post and get away with it.

had someone else replied like that, and the mods felt giving, i am sure any other person would have gotten a ban.

[Underverse]

You realize this is a private forum and the people running it can make whatever rules they want

That doesn't mean people who frequent the forums can't open a discussion on said rules. The argument here isn't that these rules are somehow illegal. It's that they're too restrictive.

[Steve French]

The heavy handed infractions don't help much either, basically get infracted if a mod disagrees with you.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

-snip-

I understand you're not paid, and while I do appreciate your service to MMO-C... wouldn't more Mods be a solution? Making sure you have a few online at all times? I see that some sub forums only have 1-2 mods.. which can't really cover all times of the day.

[Underverse]

It's only where that stuff goes as long as the rules allow it, and they no longer do.

Rules are arbitrary. That rules currently do not allow for something is not an argument for the existence of said rules.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The heavy handed infractions don't help much either, basically get infracted if a mod disagrees with you.

Well as it is, there are really only three options:

1) Close threads more often

2) INfract people more often

3) leave everything open, and punish no one.... causing issues.

[Ahovv]

I just find there is a lack of consistency in how these restrictions are applied.

Oh, you're not supposed to nation-bash? Read through virtually every thread and someone (without getting infracted) goes, "hurr durr another day in 'murica. Americans are all X."

[Underverse]

For the most part, the moderation team would love to be able to trim down that "forbidden topics" list. However, there's a reason those topics have gotten onto that list. They're topics which, in our experience, do not produce any constructive discussion, but just turn into two (or more) sides shouting insults and "NO U" type responses at each other, forcing the moderation team to step in repeatedly and heavily to cut down on the flaming and abuse. It's not that these topics shouldn't be discussed; many of us would enjoy productive discussions on those topics. It's entirely down to how those topics go on these specific forums, with our community.

For instance; I love discussing religion and theology. I was one credit short of minoring in Religion, with my first degree. I debated becoming a clergyman for a while, in my youth. I know I can discuss the topic without mocking people's faith and whatnot, but that's unfortunately not how such topics tend to go, here, so it's on "the list".

It's better to see that list as toys that have been taken away because community members keep hitting each other with them, rather than toys we think are dangerous or "bad" in and of themselves. It's not our goal to see how many people we can ban every week, and allowing topics that serve to just make a lot of people angry enough to flame and threaten others or engage in hateful speech of some sort means we have to drag out the banhammers, and if we can avoid doing so by banning the topic, that's "better". Neither option's ideal, and I recognize that. The ideal would be if everyone could be more even-tempered and engage in open, constructive discussion, even if others disagree with their views.

I recognize this can feel unfair to those who DO behave well; see my above comment about really enjoying religious debate. It's a tough choice as to which path is "better", because it's pretty much a Sophie's Choice thing. Two bad options, and no good ones on the table.

Another issue is regarding your proposed "solution"; the central issue with it is that we moderators are volunteers, and it'll happen that I'll poke my head into a thread on Page 3, see that it's "okay" in terms of behaviour even though it's a topic we know is problematic (but not banned, at that point), I'll go to bed, wake up, and the thread is now 52 pages and it went to the Abyss by page 5, and everything after is horrendous. After a couple hours of cleaning and a couple dozen people banned for outrageous behaviour, the thread's finally locked, but the damage is done. If we have that topic on the list so I can just close it at page 3 before it gets that bad, that's "better" from the mod team's perspective. If we were paid, and here 24/7, and could have someone babysit a thread all day, that'd be a different situation.

If threads devolve and people are willing to engage, then why not let them? People still have the ability to report posts, and the decision to close a thread can be made at that point. I'm not sure it has to be preemptive - even if you know it's going to turn into a 'NO U' back and forth, as long as people are willing to engage and posts aren't reported, I don't really see a problem.

[Lightwysh]

If it help curbs the click bait threads, good. This forum has devolved into click bait spam with no purpose but to start shit flinging at one side or another.

[Underverse]

Well as it is, there are really only three options:

1) Close threads more often

2) INfract people more often

3) leave everything open, and punish no one.... causing issues.

Or close threads on the basis of reported posts or moderator discretion (which is not what's happening now, as Endus said).

[Endus]

dont forget thread necro'ing ...


as it happened, i replied to an old post without noticing the date and got a warning...

checked the rules, and unless i totally missed it, there is no clear indicative for this warning..

is it consider necro if its an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year? ... either way, time has passed since the original post, even if the topic has remained active...

For what it's worth;

Neither spamming or trolling is acceptable on the forums. This includes, but is not limited to, the following examples:

Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases, or pure gibberish
Creating threads for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forums
Causing disturbances in forum threads, such as picking fights, making off topic posts that ruin the thread, insulting other posters
Making non-constructive posts
Abusing the Reported Post feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messages
Numbering a thread, IBTL, TLDR, or any other fad statements
Thread-necro: Reviving an old thread for no reason other than bumping it to the first page
Posting meme or troll images, text, or videos; "cool story bro", "u mad", "10/10", captioned images, etc...
Replying to a thread simply to call the author a troll (regardless of whether the post is actually trolling -- if you feel it is, please use the report button)

Listed there in the ruleset. We don't have a specific date for the same reason we don't specify details in a lot of the rules; the mod team uses their discretion and some internal principles to make those decisions. We don't want to expose those details because we don't want to see people trying to "rules-lawyer" their way out of a ban, by saying "but I necroed that thread only a day beyond the deadline! One day isn't THAT bad?" The deadlines we use are already fairly generous, in that respect, and it gives us greater leeway to deal with cases with other context, like if someone's spamming by necroing a dozen threads that aren't QUITE at the deadline.

Also, if there's new information and the thread's the kind where a bump back into living is warranted, it's not considered a necro. For instance, if there's a thread about a SCOTUS decision (for example), and then it goes dormant and 6 months later, they reach a decision, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to bump the old thread with that info, rather than starting a new thread. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, and a lot depends on context. If you DO decide to do so, though, please note that you've resurrected the thread; it helps people realize that older posts are from months back.