Code of Conduct Changes - Do better at least for optics

"

ZoeQuinn wrote:

Its inflamatory if feelings are hurt.

I see what you did there.

Thanks for explaining @鬼殺し, guess I am too literal when I read it (I rather ask to be safe, despite my common sense), and I bet that down the line in future, there will be people trying to circumvent new/modified Code of conduct in many creative ways.

I am fully aware of "their forum, their rules" and actually don't mind it, as I've barely had a part in any of those discussions anyway.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Would recommending a non-fiction book about an investigation of political corruption and crime in the literary thread be allowed?

I literally worded that poorly.

The thing about the literary world is it's full of yesterday's controversies and upsets. If it's too current, too fresh, you can't really call it literature. I've read my share of these books, as you know, and they're all quickly-churned-out tripe that won't stand any test of time. A proper reflection on history demands retrospective. We don't have that yet. The definitive book of this era will come after it.

Now if you've got something juicy on Watergate, I'm all ears.

I for one will just ignore obvious attempts at derailing what should be a helpful, friendly discussion spanning the beautiful, nigh endless range of topics books can propose. Sustained efforts at disruption will be reported. It's that simple.

I meant THE report by THE guy (Not going to be too specific, just in case) :)

Also, understood.

People should have seen it coming. It is like watching a slow motion movie. You have this thought ringing in your head. "When is it coming? When is it coming?"

If the intention is to allow the community to write down condolences in an safe and protected way, we should build an proper officially recognized single OT-graveyard-thread instead of plastering every corner with an overabundance of corpses and RiP-threads, needless to say we should also offer a wide array of burrialceremonies from tossing em into a swamp, burying them next to stonesculpturs, fire arrows at the ships, tossing the ashes into rivers and incinerating their worldly remains.

People could actively favourisite a certain pagenumber and be easily able to return to the graveyard-thread if additional mourning is in order.

A decision will have to be made if it´s ok to also allow the intake of
fictional marvel heroes that died recently,
illusionary concepts like free-will, speech or liberty,
or the other unnamed and never mentioned childs that die in africa every 10seconds according to unicef as a symbol.
As a first i would bury the "idea that moderation gets easier if theres less to discuss", in there.

"

Another key factor we discussed at length regarding this change is the effect these kinds of topics have on our staff. Forum and game moderation is no easy task and while many players do abide by our Code of Conduct, there are also many players that do not. There are a significant number of really horrible chat and forum postings our team deals with on a daily basis. We hope to significantly reduce the strain on our staff for the benefit of their mental well-being.

Quite sure it will help moderators cope easily with the remaining sludge of sickening homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny, all far lesser evils than the topics of religion and politics, eh?

Sure, removing the obvious and easy makes sense, I've long been surprised the Trump thread is even a thing for how much trouble it causes. Forgive my wry laugh that targeting religion and politics isn't such an assault on the core Gamer Dude supporter base culture, either.

Someone make a first they came for the Trumpsters, then they came for ... and then they came for the PC Master Race... macro?

^ Test.

Will be good to see harder moderation on some of the religious bigotry in chat.

Still, it's not so much what you say, it's how you say it.

Overall, blanket banning of two vital topics - yes, even on a gaming forum - is against my values so fundamentally I'm not sure about how it'll affect me using Off Topic. No loss in the scheme of things, and certainly not cause for calling the waambulance. Guess we'll see how it all pans out.

Not bad timing though, this, interesting and apt, even.

This is disappointing and stupid. I respect you guys for your game, and plenty of other things, but this is plain a let down.

If this is to deal with people being abusive, then deal with people being abusive. Don't ban legitimate conversation about important topics because it's hard to see people disagree with each other on the internet.

For the record, I don't really even use these forums already, but any hope that I might is thoroughly squashed. That likely means my opinion is less valid, and that's fine, but I saw this on Reddit and honestly thought it was a joke until I came and looked.

Curious whether dealing with the content is the issue or dealing with pissy people arguing about the rules/ bans afterwards or complaining and wanting something done is. Suspect it's really the latter, for which some training would be helpful.

Moot, I guess, as things will be so much easier now.

ed: Isn't Tiananmen Square History, not Politics? Hmm...

"

erdelyii wrote:

Curious whether dealing with the content is the issue or dealing with pissy people arguing about the rules/ bans afterwards or complaining and wanting something done is. Suspect it's really the latter, for which some training would be helpful.

Moot, I guess, as things will be so much easier now.

ed: Isn't Tiananmen Square History, not Politics? Hmm...

It's many things--all of them ultimately taboo as far as the Chinese Communist Party is concerned. But we better not really talk about that, because it's definitely an inflammatory topic.

I expect that about 99% of the discussions this ends up banning are things that will indeed have quite specifically not been making the community a better place; I totally get that angle. This kind of response is still always a bit disappointing in other respects.

I mean sure, there's the "the topics themselves aren't the problem" bit. I do believe that, but at the same time GGG are a game company, and there's no particular problem if they decide they don't want to host religion discussions or whatever. That's, you know, okay, whatever.

Mainly I just wish companies would feel comfortable taking a stand on ("horrible") behaviour without couching it in language like "passionate", "someone is always going to disagree" etc. This sort of thing always sounds like they're trying to reassure (and sometimes it almost slips into outright praise) the very people doing the things they want people to stop doing. I don't see how you make a better community by placating the people causing problems.