http://www.gamespot.com/news/important-update-to-the-gamespot-community-code-of-conduct-6414922 starting today anyone with moderating powers on the site will enforce our existing guidelines (and continue to do so once new ones are in place) in the following way. First offense: User will receive a warning. Second offense: Seven-day suspension from the site. Third offense: Permanent Ban from GameSpot For the sake of clarity, this will include forums, comment sections, and blogs. The ban will be imposed to those that violate our guidelines within a span of 60 days of each offense. If no further incidents occur within the 60 day period, the user will be cycled back to good standing all is right in the world. For most of you, the only effect of these changes should be a noticeable improvement in the quality of conversation across the site. On the other hand some of you might see this as an unrealistic request and to those individual Id like to remind them that there are plenty of vestibules in the online space that would welcome your closed minded views. How many closed minded OT vets will be taken away from us? What will the new new tou hold?
So nothing specific about what constitutes the new ToU...or didn't it change. I'm so confused...(LJS9502_basic
It only applies to hate speech. One warning. One temporary ban. One perma-ban. 3 strikes and you're out.
Â
Â
Seems pretty fair and reasonable, so long as they don't start playing fast and loose with what qualifies as 'hate speech.' I'm guessing it's in response to the GTA 5 review which, while really dumb, was not an excuse to launch into personal attacks on the reviewer's life choices.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Seems pretty fair and reasonable, so long as they don't start playing fast and loose with what qualifies as 'hate speech.' I'm guessing it's in response to the GTA 5 review which, while really dumb, was not an excuse to launch into personal attacks on the reviewer's life choices. Kind of feel that if you get that emotional over someone's review.....you need to seek some professional help. It's just games man....
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Seems pretty fair and reasonable, so long as they don't start playing fast and loose with what qualifies as 'hate speech.' I'm guessing it's in response to the GTA 5 review which, while really dumb, was not an excuse to launch into personal attacks on the reviewer's life choices. Kind of feel that if you get that emotional over someone's review.....you need to seek some professional help. It's just games man.... Yeah, but videogames in particularly seem to attract very angry people. Same with movies. I can never imagine myself ever being compelled to insult a person's gender or sexual orientation because they reviewed a game in a manner I disagree with, or to disagree with a casting decision to the point of setting up and signing an online petition. Nerds have temper problems.
It almost sounds like that they are reinstituting the old ToU.
dave123321
One can only hope. Nah the old one was way too sensitive, people got banned left right and centre for very little. It was easily possible to get moderated even if you were one of the more subdued, easy-going people on the board. One time someone made a thread asking why religion threads never get locked and I posted that Jesus was a moderator here and he allows open discussions. I was suspended for offensively implying that Jesus would be a forum moderator. But they went too far throwing out 99% of the rules altogether. They needed a balance. If you want all out chaos, we all know where you can go.
It almost sounds like that they are reinstituting the old ToU.
Ninja-Hippo
One can only hope. Nah the old one was way too sensitive, people got banned left right and centre for very little. It was easily possible to get moderated even if you were one of the more subdued, easy-going people on the board. One time someone made a thread asking why religion threads never get locked and I posted that Jesus was a moderator here and he allows open discussions. I was suspended for offensively implying that Jesus would be a forum moderator. But they went too far throwing out 99% of the rules altogether. They needed a balance. If you want all out chaos, we all know where you can go. Honestly, we should start logically moderating people. One person makes a hicup, who cares. Some guy or girls who keeps pushing it, then suspend him/her.
"This is clearly just meant to troll you guys, stop biting." - moderated because accusing someone of trolling was interpreted as trolling, under the rules.
"It's a really obvious alt account, don't respond to trolls." - same as above, guess I forgot the first time
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive
*I'm not impressed* "Much like every other poster in this thread with a PSN sig... >_>" - moderated for offensively implying that a playstation user didn't like an xbox game due to their sig
"This is clearly just meant to troll you guys, stop biting." - moderated because accusing someone of trolling was interpreted as trolling, under the rules.
"It's a really obvious alt account, don't respond to trolls." - same as above, guess I forgot the first time
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive
*I'm not impressed* "Much like every other poster in this thread with a PSN sig... >_>" - moderated for offensively implying that a playstation user didn't like an xbox game due to their sig
Top lols :lol:Â
Ninja-Hippo
What.. I hope this isn't returning, or I'm going to get banned fast.
"This is clearly just meant to troll you guys, stop biting." - moderated because accusing someone of trolling was interpreted as trolling, under the rules.
"It's a really obvious alt account, don't respond to trolls." - same as above, guess I forgot the first time
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive
*I'm not impressed* "Much like every other poster in this thread with a PSN sig... >_>" - moderated for offensively implying that a playstation user didn't like an xbox game due to their sig
Top lols :lol:Â
The_Lipscomb
What.. I hope this isn't returning, or I'm going to get banned fast. There were some utterly baffling rules that you could only ever find out by getting moderated. For instance, accusing someone of trolling or being a troll would *always* get you moderated for trolling yourself, even if their trolling was obvious. You just weren't allowed to say so. It was also a blanket-rule that you're not allowed to tell anyone why they got moderated; someone PM'd me asking why they got modded (the post they were moderated for was talking to me). I PM'd him back and explained that his post implied that he was more intelligent than me, which could be interpreted as him insulting me, and you're not allowed to insult people here. I got modded for the message. :lol: Though it eventually got reversed.
"This is clearly just meant to troll you guys, stop biting." - moderated because accusing someone of trolling was interpreted as trolling, under the rules.
"It's a really obvious alt account, don't respond to trolls." - same as above, guess I forgot the first time
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive
*I'm not impressed* "Much like every other poster in this thread with a PSN sig... >_>" - moderated for offensively implying that a playstation user didn't like an xbox game due to their sig
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]TC you do realize that saying anyone that disagrees is close minded, makes you close minded?dave123321
Poster do you realize that I only said the last two questions? No I didnt. Quotations make these problems of miscomnunication disappear. :) I apologize for the attack
[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]TC you do realize that saying anyone that disagrees is close minded, makes you close minded?Capitan_Kid
Poster do you realize that I only said the last two questions? No I didnt. Quotations make these problems of miscomnunication disappear. :) I apologize for the attack No need to apologize, understandable mistake that was my fault
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So nothing specific about what constitutes the new ToU...or didn't it change. I'm so confused...(Ninja-Hippo
It only applies to hate speech. One warning. One temporary ban. One perma-ban. 3 strikes and you're out.
Â
Â
Seems pretty fair and reasonable, so long as they don't start playing fast and loose with what qualifies as 'hate speech.' I'm guessing it's in response to the GTA 5 review which, while really dumb, was not an excuse to launch into personal attacks on the reviewer's life choices.
Yeah, I saw some of that from The Feedbackula. While I'm not going to take sides on the topic of the reviewer's life choices, I will say that while you don't have to agree, some of the things they said were....pretty sick.
I have no problem with the rule and if anything it should be stricter. Just ban any asshole making hate speech. The comments made toward Carolyn were sickening.
I hope http://s4.zetaboards.com/The_Daily_Happening/forum/3128480/ does not incorporate this policy into their administration practices. I do not expect them to, fortunately, because the admins there were laughing about it earlier.
I suppose my choice words for OPs will have to be kept for the most egregious offenses against humanity.
I hope http://s4.zetaboards.com/The_Daily_Happening/forum/3128480/ does not incorporate this policy into their administration practices. I do not expect them to, fortunately, because the admins there were laughing about it earlier.Laihendi
I suppose my choice words for OPs will have to be kept for the most egregious offenses against humanity.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I hope http://s4.zetaboards.com/The_Daily_Happening/forum/3128480/ does not incorporate this policy into their administration practices. I do not expect them to, fortunately, because the admins there were laughing about it earlier.coolbeans90
They would never.
But on the bright side, it adds a whole new layer of meaning when you finally say it.
I suppose my choice words for OPs will have to be kept for the most egregious offenses against humanity.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I hope http://s4.zetaboards.com/The_Daily_Happening/forum/3128480/ does not incorporate this policy into their administration practices. I do not expect them to, fortunately, because the admins there were laughing about it earlier.Capitan_Kid
They would never.
But on the bright side, it adds a whole new layer of meaning when you finally say it.
True, it'll have more weight.
Also, this (hopefully) will usher in more TDH-style trolling that disappeared during the prior ToU revisions.
"This is clearly just meant to troll you guys, stop biting." - moderated because accusing someone of trolling was interpreted as trolling, under the rules.
"It's a really obvious alt account, don't respond to trolls." - same as above, guess I forgot the first time
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive
*I'm not impressed* "Much like every other poster in this thread with a PSN sig... >_>" - moderated for offensively implying that a playstation user didn't like an xbox game due to their sig
Top lols :lol:Â
The_Lipscomb
What.. I hope this isn't returning, or I'm going to get banned fast. I'm assuming my days are numbered as well. Should I find a new board now?
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive
Ninja-Hippo
I remember that thread................Good times.................
Believe I also got modded for a smartass remark in that thread.............................
no we dont. OT is fine. SW on the other hand... IDK why the let the trolls go on for so long wven tho the mods themselves hate some users they know are trolling 24/7
[QUOTE="dave123321"]We need a more aware moderation policy Nengo_Flow
no we dont. OT is fine. SW on the other hand... IDK why the let the trolls go on for so long wven tho the mods themselves hate some users they know are trolling 24/7 No, OT is not fine. I'm glad we have this policy now. Hate speech shouldn't be tolerated; end of discussion.
[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"][QUOTE="dave123321"]We need a more aware moderation policy ShadowsDemon
no we dont. OT is fine. SW on the other hand... IDK why the let the trolls go on for so long wven tho the mods themselves hate some users they know are trolling 24/7 No, OT is not fine. I'm glad we have this policy now. Hate speech shouldn't be tolerated; end of discussion. I havent really seen hate speech around here. The reason they want to have stricter rules is not cuz of the forums, its becuz of the reaction/comments people have been posting in some of the reviews of games and in some of the news shows GS has.
*Name of a website* is the most offensive website I've ever come across* Me: "I'm going to google it.... will I regret this?" - moderated for quoting someone who talked about a website which some may find offensive Ninja-Hippo
*Sigh* I got modded/suspended so many times for doing something similar to this....
[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"] no we dont. OT is fine. SW on the other hand... IDK why the let the trolls go on for so long wven tho the mods themselves hate some users they know are trolling 24/7Nengo_Flow
No, OT is not fine. I'm glad we have this policy now. Hate speech shouldn't be tolerated; end of discussion. I havent really seen hate speech around here. The reason they want to have stricter rules is not cuz of the forums, its becuz of the reaction/comments people have been posting in some of the reviews of games and in some of the news shows GS has.The previous tou had major flaws with.it.That is all I am going to say.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So nothing specific about what constitutes the new ToU...or didn't it change. I'm so confused...(Ninja-Hippo
It only applies to hate speech. One warning. One temporary ban. One perma-ban. 3 strikes and you're out.
Â
Â
Seems pretty fair and reasonable, so long as they don't start playing fast and loose with what qualifies as 'hate speech.' I'm guessing it's in response to the GTA 5 review which, while really dumb, was not an excuse to launch into personal attacks on the reviewer's life choices.
Â
Huh? The game got 9.0, last I checked that's a pretty good score.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So nothing specific about what constitutes the new ToU...or didn't it change. I'm so confused...(Ninja-Hippo
It only applies to hate speech. One warning. One temporary ban. One perma-ban. 3 strikes and you're out.
Â
Â
Seems pretty fair and reasonable, so long as they don't start playing fast and loose with what qualifies as 'hate speech.' I'm guessing it's in response to the GTA 5 review which, while really dumb, was not an excuse to launch into personal attacks on the reviewer's life choices.
You don't even have to personally attack anyone - all you have to do is state your beliefs on gender and sex identity - if they don't link up with Gamespot's moderators, it's hate speech. Moderators pretty much do their job entirely on their own discretion anyways - the ToS doesn't really matter if they can decide anything on their own discretion, now does it?
Log in to comment