About union guidelines

I've recently read a thread in Ask the Mods about a person who was moderated for posting in a "bad game thread", and he was given a link to the Union Guideliness thread in the Union Recruitment board. Has it occured to anyone that this might be a little unfair? What if the person joined by direct personal invite instead of coming across the union through the recruitment board? There is no such link to these guidelines in the Terms of Use, so how is the user expected to know these rules?

I suggest that if you wish to continue to enforce these rules, you need to make it mandatory that all leaders and officers publish a link to the union guidelines, or you create an official header with said guideliness for every union board, or change the mandatory first offense penalty to a warning instead of a point loss. It ismy personal opinion that this current policy isnot only unfair but also a bit heavy handed.

Thank you for your time.

Approximately at the start of last year I was moderated for creating an illegal game thread before that guidelines topic was made, I was told that these rules were always in place even if they weren't posted in a topic. Usually the leader/officers of the union should know the union rules and guidelines before they take on the role so they shouldn't have allowed the topic. Users should also think before posting a topic if it could come across as spam, I do agree though that the topic should be located on a union board or homepage.

I think the general game thread guidelines should be copied into the ToU, since it's very possible a member may have come into a Union not from that specific board that houses the guidelines.

Another less-likely but effective idea would be to add a little checkbox in the thread options for Unions to mark it as a game thread. Then a header saying like, "Attention! This thread is a game thread, and certain restrictions do apply in this thread. [insert guidelines from Game Thread Regulations here.]" Also when more than the limit of game threads is reached and one is attempted to be marked, it could warn the user not to create the thread to avoid that. Obviously this would require more work than the ToU thing, but it was just an idea.

So, I agree with this thread completely.

I agree with the OP here and with most of the sentiments that followed. I think good will among the posters who use this forum can soon dry up and people will look elsewhere. There are a whole load of websites similar to gamespot that provide excellent service these days so game fans have options. I think if I were served with suspension or moderation that was neither fully explained or unjust, well then I would look elsewhere and not look back.

For the most part I've only encountered sensible people on this site who are passionate about the hobby I enjoy. We use the forums and unions as a means of developing community spirit and enjoying the company of others that share our passion for gaming. What as gamers we do not need is heavy handed moderation amongst what appears to be a dwindling community. Otherwise, ill will most assuredly will foster amongst those hard done by and many could leave these forums for good.

I thought in the free world, the democratic world, we were entitled to express ourselves in a manner as we see fit, i.e. freedom of speech. I was unaware that we were now living in some sort of semi controlled state. I agree that for the most part some offensive language and words need to be monitored, but modding someone for posting in a manner that could be perceived as spam if they've used only one word for example, and punishing people with points loss and suspension is both over the top and unnecessary, especially if it comes without warning. I think GS rules need an overhaul and union sites should automatically come with this warning attached as a sticky within each union's forum pages. That way GS can moderate how they currently seem to be because the users would have no choice other than to read the conditions.

I also agree with this 100%, the rule was completely seperated forom many other 0ones, and the punishment for this is so strict it is almost beyond comprehension.

I thought in the free world, the democratic world, we were entitled to express ourselves in a manner as we see fit, i.e. freedom of speech. pai-may

I just saw that recently. I like your idea.

[QUOTE="pai-may"]I thought in the free world, the democratic world, we were entitled to express ourselves in a manner as we see fit, i.e. freedom of speech. Caddy06_88

Guys... really?

Usually I don't comment on union matters, or get involved in this kind of rules discussion, but we need to hold a mirror up to this situation and be honest. This isn't about specific rules - this is about people here who are abusing the intent of the site. We have people here who are creating union games and "10,000+ post count" threads in order to boost their union, post count, messages viewed, etc. None of that is what GS is about - GameSpot is about gamers sharing a community together, not about profile or union statistics.

-

The only reason to demand overly-explicit rules is so that people can find a loophole that lets them continue to spam the site. That's just not going to happen - violating the intent of the site, the site's purpose, is a pretty reasonable thing to get a slap on the wrist over. I can't speak for everyone, but I have no desire to see people fighting with this site's administration over their "right" to create 100,000 post threads, or make unions that are nothing but post-boost games.

-

I won't be checking back on this topic, but I simply wanted to make my feelings clear.I think most of the other active users on this site simply go "oh geez", and walk away. That leaves the "bubbles" of people thinking that they've got consensus, which simply isn't true. Look at your activity on this site from the perspective of the games journalists who own it, and be reasonable - this isn't your twitter, blog, or Facebook, it's a commercial webpage which uses its forums as one of many draws. Our community is about more than union games.

Guys... really?

Usually I don't comment on union matters, or get involved in this kind of rules discussion, but we need to hold a mirror up to this situation and be honest. This isn't about specific rules - this is about people here who are abusing the intent of the site. We have people here who are creating union games and "10,000+ post count" threads in order to boost their union, post count, messages viewed, etc. None of that is what GS is about - GameSpot is about gamers sharing a community together, not about profile or union statistics.

-

The only reason to demand overly-explicit rules is so that people can find a loophole that lets them continue to spam the site. That's just not going to happen - violating the intent of the site, the site's purpose, is a pretty reasonable thing to get a slap on the wrist over. I can't speak for everyone, but I have no desire to see people fighting with this site's administration over their "right" to create 100,000 post threads, or make unions that are nothing but post-boost games.

-

I won't be checking back on this topic, but I simply wanted to make my feelings clear.I think most of the other active users on this site simply go "oh geez", and walk away. That leaves the "bubbles" of people thinking that they've got consensus, which simply isn't true. Look at your activity on this site from the perspective of the games journalists who own it, and be reasonable - this isn't your twitter, blog, or Facebook, it's a commercial webpage which uses its forums as one of many draws. Our community is about more than union games.

Why not link to every official rule thread in the Ask the mods board? horgen123

I noticed a user in Ask the Mods made a similar point. Yet, merely by reading the Terms of Use (as required when creating an account), users should have an inkling that union games are categorically spam/disruptive. As Soulreavercross explained in the Union Games Sticky . . . "contrary to what most users may think ALL union board thread games are considered Spam/Disruptive Posting according to the GS TOU, however we do allow some union games on GameSpot Union Forums." In other words, the permissible game threads are exceptions to the general rule on spam/disruptive posting.

That being said, more visibility is always better, and I'm sure the TC's suggestion will be given due consideration.

but how can we follow the rules when the rules are not all there on the first place, answer that one, as a matter of fact when is it right to give a suspension before giving a warning or a Moderation with a point loss?jediknight52501

I noticed a user in Ask the Mods made a similar point. Yet, merely by reading the Terms of Use (as required when creating an account), users should have an inkling that union games are categorically spam/disruptive. As Soulreavercross explained in the Union Games Sticky . . . "contrary to what most users may think ALL union board thread games are considered Spam/Disruptive Posting according to the GS TOU, however we do allow some union games on GameSpot Union Forums." In other words, the permissible game threads are exceptions to the general rule on spam/disruptive posting.

That being said, more visibility is always better, and I'm sure the TC's suggestion will be given due consideration.

Elraptor

[QUOTE="jediknight52501"]but how can we follow the rules when the rules are not all there on the first place, answer that one, as a matter of fact when is it right to give a suspension before giving a warning or a Moderation with a point loss?Caddy06_88

[QUOTE="msudude211"] But how can we assume that all users have an "inkling" that all union games are disruptive? I sure didn't know, and I've been here three years.

The ToU says you can't use one word posts, only smilies, alternating caps, all caps, etc., but what does that have to do with saying something about a users post count in COTUAY? How would an average user know that's suspension worthy? Elraptor

interesting how there is still no admin comment here yet...the closest thing is from a few mods, which unsuprisingly, are on the defensive. i think that this is a legitimate problem that seriously needs to be addressed.

interesting how there is still no admin comment here yet...the closest thing is from a few mods, which unsuprisingly, are on the defensive. i think that this is a legitimate problem that seriously needs to be addressed.

borninvincible

[QUOTE="borninvincible"]

interesting how there is still no admin comment here yet...the closest thing is from a few mods, which unsuprisingly, are on the defensive. i think that this is a legitimate problem that seriously needs to be addressed.

Moroes

oh ok that makes sense... :)

I can't see how it does so please explain to me if it does more harm, why and how it does more harm. fastesttruck

It's not like having it in the ToU would be enough for people, though. Like Elraptor mentioned earlier, if people were to really read the ToU, they would realise that union games are generally not allowed, and that the ToU states that really without exceptions. However, a few games have been deemed acceptable to have in unions, and that is what the topic in the Union Recruitment board is for. So, if they had read the ToU, they really should think that spamming up union games is not allowed, at all, even though there are exceptions that have been made.

It's not that I am against more visibility, it's that I don't think the ToU is right for it. I think a better solution would be to have a header created for every single union board (just like the header in this board that contains information), that would provide a link to the thread.

It's a common issue that people don't read the ToU when they sign up, or ever after they have been round for a while, which is why I don't think putting it in the ToU would really be all that helpful. Having the link above every single union would mean that there would really be no excuse for a user not to know what is allowed when it comes to union games.

And the whole "which takes longer" argument is pretty much invalid, because it can essentially take years for a small ToU change, because it all has to go through CBS Legal department, where as a header could be done by GS staff themselves.Caddy06_88

It's a common issue that people don't read the ToU when they sign up, or ever after they have been round for a while, which is why I don't think putting it in the ToU would really be all that helpful. Having the link above every single union would mean that there would really be no excuse for a user not to know what is allowed when it comes to union games.

And the whole "which takes longer" argument is pretty much invalid, because it can essentially take years for a small ToU change, because it all has to go through CBS Legal department, where as a header could be done by GS staff themselves.Caddy06_88

ehh, i was suspended a entire week for the same thing. Lot of users were suspended, but most of them didnt know they wrere really breaking the rules. Also, an instantly suspension is not fair too.I think is morebetter to send a warning to the user, instead of a suspension. I had saw other cases in which different users were moderated for insulting other people, and thee only received a warning.