Site News Forum

Forum to discuss TA news items. Only TrueAchievement can post here

Update To The TrueAchievements Forum Policy

AuthorMessage
Throni360
1,054,167
Throni360
Posted on 14 March 19 at 23:59
all of the fish said:
Gaming websites in general can have toxic atmospheres and moderation is important.
Toxic is a buzzword.
Cragz1337
22,610
Cragz1337
Posted on 15 March 19 at 02:50
N0T PENNYS B0AT said:
o DEEVIUS o said:
TrueAchievements is an important platform for communication for many young people, computers, phones and gaming have become the most predominant things in a kid's life now. Alike to Facebook, TA has a responsibility to young people, they use the forums here as a major form of 'human' interaction. This kind of mollycoddling and censorship only hurts them more when they face real life issues and lack the tools to handle them properly. It's been happening more and more in schools and colleges, social media, at home, and now even on our gaming sites.

Hitting people with a ridiculous wall of overly strict rules and threatening everyone with a ban only removes any possibility of interesting debate, challenging discussions and basically any forum worth even looking at. I for one have no intention of entering a forum that is so controlled no one can say what they feel, if they don't agree pleasantly with everyone else like a Goddamn mindless sheep they are deleted or banned.

I'm very disappointed in TA for this, we've descended so far now with articles and reviews etc and now this that it's not even worth coming here anymore. cry
I don’t think these rules are any stricter. They’re just more clear and consistent. There were gray areas we needed to fix for the mods and I think these rules achieve that. People are reading into them more than needed, I feel. Maybe I’m misremembering what they said before but the bottom line is these rules allow for broader discussion, not narrower.
Well you say that and now Devius has just been banned. He said the same things as above in his FF (with a single use of the 'f' word granted) and just got banned. I know 'cos he's my cousin and he told me to check out Trueachievements new rules, i don't normally use this site but it's funny to see how stirct it is here, you guys must argue a lot
True Completionist
Shinnizle
705,480
Shinnizle
Posted on 15 March 19 at 03:01
Throni360 said:
all of the fish said:
Gaming websites in general can have toxic atmospheres and moderation is important.
Toxic is a buzzword.
It's also a song by Britney Spears.
Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
Tropan
639,312
Tropan
Posted on 15 March 19 at 03:48
Shinnizle said:
Throni360 said:
all of the fish said:
Gaming websites in general can have toxic atmospheres and moderation is important.
Toxic is a buzzword.
It's also a song by Britney Spears.
Also the BEST avenger. wink
3 Aussies talking about gaming, gamerscore and news! http://realgamerscore.com/
Shadow 00 Fox
537,658
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 15 March 19 at 06:14
Death Dealers said:
“.......One post you put made me wonder who peed in your cereal this morning.......
I've never heard that before, I about died laughing... laughlaugh

Now back to catching up on page 7 of 19... facepalm
Sketchy77
284,362
Sketchy77
Posted on 15 March 19 at 07:40
Perhaps if you want to avoid the toxicity that comes attached to discussions about politics, you should avoid writing articles about politics?

Its a gaming website. Political propaganda defended under the guise "well its just an op-ed, its my opinion" is exactly the type of garbage peddled by 90% of the other gaming media outlets.

Gaming journalism has enough Polygons and Kotakus. Its not like gamers don't have 100 other topics within the scope of actual gaming to disagree about and discuss.

Seems to me the target of your new rules should be your writers not the community.
Achievement Unlocked ~ Read My Signature 0G
Joshi 82 AT
721,481
Joshi 82 AT
Posted on 15 March 19 at 08:17
Maybe it would add to the quality of the comments in forums by having multiple layers of punishment for violations. (<--- Thinking out loud)

Depending on the violation you get a warning - comment deleted - ban from the thread - 30 day ban from the forum - ban from site.

Also to give the accused a chance to state his case to the moderators/administrators if he/she receives a punishment in any form. Furthermore if someone is reported for a comment or multiple comments and the moderators/administrators don't agree that they could let the person know their reasoning for not punishing a fellow community member.
ClownTastic
638,420
ClownTastic
Posted on 15 March 19 at 08:39
I enjoy the Op-Eds for the most part. I like to read them and learn about other peoples points of view on subjects whether I agree with them or not. Perhaps instead of complaining about Op-Ed articles, if you don't like them just don't read them. Nobody is forcing them on you or making reading them a requirement of being on the site. If you do still decide to read them and you do disagree on what's been said you are more than welcome to discuss it and share your views, just do so respectfully without devolving into a rant about snowflakes, SJWs etc.
Throni360
1,054,167
Throni360
Posted on 15 March 19 at 09:09
Sketchy77 said:
Perhaps if you want to avoid the toxicity that comes attached to discussions about politics, you should avoid writing articles about politics?
Won't happen, because those articles result in more clicks, more pageviews are therefore more ads displayed. The political articles are among the most clicked and discussed ones. It's a blessing if you look at ad revenue created by those articles. A few annoyed users is a small price to pay compared to the additional pageviews and traffic.
LordSoth66
222,336
LordSoth66
Posted on 15 March 19 at 11:01
In general I'm in favor of freedom of speech and against the extreme political correctness in many fields like humour or fiction, which in my opinion is in fact a hidden form of censorship.
Nonetheless I must admit that I don't like the type of offensive and hatred messages now often seen in many internet forums, twitter, etc, so if this is the only way to avoid this kind of bad behaviour, it will be a good thing for sure.
I think it should be possible to argue about any topic with respect and pointing out different opinions and points of view, but maybe it's too utopian.
Elite1111111111
Posted on 15 March 19 at 12:37, Edited on 15 March 19 at 12:43 by Elite1111111111
Joshi 82 AT said:
Maybe it would add to the quality of the comments in forums by having multiple layers of punishment for violations. (<--- Thinking out loud)

Depending on the violation you get a warning - comment deleted - ban from the thread - 30 day ban from the forum - ban from site.

Also to give the accused a chance to state his case to the moderators/administrators if he/she receives a punishment in any form. Furthermore if someone is reported for a comment or multiple comments and the moderators/administrators don't agree that they could let the person know their reasoning for not punishing a fellow community member.
The issue is that it's always been done that way (in what I've seen in my year on the team), but there are always going to be people that claim we came in heavy-handed when we barely ever went above warnings and post deletions. Unfortunately, most mod action resulted in what happened in this thread - a page long argument about the warning/deletion.

Essentially, I think people have gone so long where the mods have barely stepped in that they see any mod action as coming out of left field.
WeisGuy9
513,093
WeisGuy9
Posted on 15 March 19 at 13:27
a Fi1thy Casual said:
Stevo6483 said:
Nice to see improvements like this but I have to wonder whether some people are just going to be offended at every little thing other people say (I'll not use the catch-all term that rhymes with {#}blow cakes{#} but it seems we're having to pander to them too much). Going from some of the comments in this thread alone it certainly seems that way.
You are always going to have people like that, though - there is really nothing you can do to completely remove them from public discourse.

And it is not restricted to one particular ideology either - the outrage culture is fairly common everywhere. These guidelines may mitigate it, and to some that may be inherently wrong - I don't know.

However I am seeing some posts here of people claiming some sort of personal attack - as though these guidelines themselves will get them banned or comments removed unwarrantedly - and thus pre-emptively deleting achievement solutions and other contributions. And personally I find that to be a bit {#}blow cakey{#} in and of itself. It's a weird knee-jerk reaction to something that, most likely in a few weeks time will be forgotten and people will continue on, business as usual.
I'm co-opting the term "blow cakey". It's my new favorite word! LOL

Thanks, guys. I love it! ROFL
Shinnizle
705,480
Shinnizle
Posted on 15 March 19 at 16:45
Shadow 00 Fox said:
Death Dealers said:
“.......One post you put made me wonder who peed in your cereal this morning.......
I've never heard that before, I about died laughing... laughlaugh

Now back to catching up on page 7 of 19... facepalm
You've never heard the idiom "Who peed in your cheerios"?
Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
dsp100252
228,979
dsp100252
Posted on 15 March 19 at 17:00
Sorry for the huge post, but been giving this a lot of thought recently, and I feel like online “debators” can generally be formed into two groups, neither of which is exclusive to any one political/social side. Anyone can be in either group at any given time, it’s more about how they approach a particular discussion. It’s also important to note, there isn’t anything wrong with Group B per se as long as all participants are on board; however too often they try to engage Group A in bad faith leading Group A people feeling frustrated or deceived. Finally, it's up to each individual site to decide how they want to shape their forums and which group they want to cater to, and if you prefer one style over the other than it's really up to you to find a site that better fits. I personally prefer Group A which is what TA seems to be going for, so obviously I'm happy, but I can see why others aren't.

Group A:
-prefers a debate to be a free exchange of ideas with no winners or losers
-willing to amend all or part of initial stance based on new information presented
-does not get defensive at new ideas in general, unless it’s directly provocative
-prefers discussion to flow in ordered, consecutive logical steps
-welcomes rules and structures to debates; will view it as a challenge to present their side more succinctly and on point
-avoids relying too much on emotional language
-avoids personal attacks
-feels regret if a good discussion devolves into a shouting match, especially if they let themselves take part
-is happy if the conversation stays in group A, and considers it personal growth either way if they bolstered initial stance or learned something new

Group B:
-prefers a debate to be a competition with clearly defined winners and losers
-views any amendment, no matter how small, to their initial stance as a form of losing and utilizing whatever means to avoid this is considered being shrewd
-easily gets defensive to new ideas and will engage in several logical fallacies to make it appear more provocative than it really is
-prefers a discussion to be more of a free-for-all, and more willing to forcibly change the direction of a discussion to where they are more confident in
-suspicious of rules and structures in debates; will often prefer free speech absolutism as anything else can be considered an obstacle designed to inhibit their chances of winning in an otherwise level playing field
-usually prefers emotional language; or will purposefully try to draw out emotional responses from other side
-will happily engage in personal attacks, even viewing it as a separate artform equal to the intellectual discussion itself
-considers it a win, or at the very least a tie, if they can devolve the discussion into a shouting match
-is only happy if they manage to win the competition, even if they have to lure members from Group A into Group B to do it; only personal growth to be had is if they successfully defended their own stance without losing ground or breaking down the debate entirely before it could happen
Kelly Hansen "dsp100252"
bryan dot exe
620,747
bryan dot exe
Posted on 15 March 19 at 18:45
Here is one vote for "Op-Eds should contain opinions".
Elyoh
667,844
Elyoh
Posted on 15 March 19 at 20:03
bryan dot exe said:
Here is one vote for {#}Op-Eds should contain opinions{#}.
I think they should more clearly be marked in the future. They should always start with "OPINION: ....." so there is no doubt from the readers perspective that they're reading am opinion and will view it as such.

I'm not talking about the title, but the first paragraph.
No God, know fear. Know God, no fear.
enracer
59,345
enracer
Posted on 16 March 19 at 00:20
Wow, the police are IN! facepalm

Be careful not to take all the fun away from posting. Some moderation is always necessary to keep the mood happy but too many strict rules can make a forum more of a reference point than a hangout.

^ would that opening line be classed as a violation?
Shadow 00 Fox
537,658
Shadow 00 Fox
Posted on 16 March 19 at 03:53, Edited on 16 March 19 at 03:54 by Shadow 00 Fox
Shinnizle said:
Shadow 00 Fox said:
Death Dealers said:
“.......One post you put made me wonder who peed in your cereal this morning.......
I've never heard that before, I about died laughing... laughlaugh

Now back to catching up on page 7 of 19... facepalm
You've never heard the idiom "Who peed in your cheerios"?
No actually--not that I would ever say it myself as I see it as vulgar, but it was pretty funny at first hearing.. laugh

This whole topic has been an interesting read, but it does bring up some interesting questions, for instance:

In controversial topics where they can be no agreement, are people now authorized to report things they disagree with and hope the mod who reviews it agrees with them?

For example(I have two other examples, just included one as one gets the point I think):
What about differences in culture? To a person in European or American culture countries, slavery is a no-no and will be referenced as something wrong. To a person in Muslim culture countries particularly northern Africa, middle east, etc, slavery especially female, is something normal and ordinary. If an OP brings up that issue, what's going to happen if people representing both cultures are present in the discussion? How can a common thread be drawn when there is no common thread?

Is TA wishing to field a playground for debates of this nature?

If this is legitimately an open type of topic, I can see it going ok, but how can the participants be assured the mods won't lean one way or the other based upon their personal beliefs and cultures?

There are many topics currently that lead to instant flame wars elsewhere on the internet as emotions boil over. Can it be successfully and fairly moderated on TA?
(What if I said "MAGA Forever!") dance Do I get reported by 32 people for using CAPS because they disagree with me?

I'm all for fair, kind, open debates, but the limitations and moderation is of paramount importance.
(I have read the entire thread now, but can't promise to remember everything)

I do want to hear an open-minded approach; often good sounding things just lay onerous rules in place of common sense, but I can understand this as an attempt to clarify rules for a very diverse group of gamers.
However, my read of the forum rules seemed to create a lot of gray areas, more open to interpretation. Maybe it's a better setup than the previous iteration was though?

Incidentally, I could've reported quite a few posts in this thread for profanity... I'm a little worried about reporting stuff though currently.
omgeezus
674,570
omgeezus
Posted on 16 March 19 at 04:06, Edited on 16 March 19 at 04:07 by omgeezus
Shadow 00 Fox said:
Shinnizle said:
Shadow 00 Fox said:
Death Dealers said:
“.......One post you put made me wonder who peed in your cereal this morning.......
I've never heard that before, I about died laughing... laughlaugh

Now back to catching up on page 7 of 19... facepalm
You've never heard the idiom "Who peed in your cheerios"?
No actually--not that I would ever say it myself as I see it as vulgar, but it was pretty funny at first hearing.. laugh

This whole topic has been an interesting read, but it does bring up some interesting questions, for instance:

In controversial topics where they can be no agreement, are people now authorized to report things they disagree with and hope the mod who reviews it agrees with them?

For example(I have two other examples, just included one as one gets the point I think):
What about differences in culture? To a person in European or American culture countries, slavery is a no-no and will be referenced as something wrong. To a person in Muslim culture countries particularly northern Africa, middle east, etc, slavery especially female, is something normal and ordinary. If an OP brings up that issue, what's going to happen if people representing both cultures are present in the discussion? How can a common thread be drawn when there is no common thread?

Is TA wishing to field a playground for debates of this nature?

If this is legitimately an open type of topic, I can see it going ok, but how can the participants be assured the mods won't lean one way or the other based upon their personal beliefs and cultures?

There are many topics currently that lead to instant flame wars elsewhere on the internet as emotions boil over. Can it be successfully and fairly moderated on TA?
(What if I said "MAGA Forever!") dance Do I get reported by 32 people for using CAPS because they disagree with me?

I'm all for fair, kind, open debates, but the limitations and moderation is of paramount importance.
(I have read the entire thread now, but can't promise to remember everything)

I do want to hear an open-minded approach; often good sounding things just lay onerous rules in place of common sense, but I can understand this as an attempt to clarify rules for a very diverse group of gamers.
However, my read of the forum rules seemed to create a lot of gray areas, more open to interpretation. Maybe it's a better setup than the previous iteration was though?

Incidentally, I could've reported quite a few posts in this thread for profanity... I'm a little worried about reporting stuff though currently.
At the end of the day, what is most important is that people are holding healthy conversations about debates that are productive in the sense that actual points are being made and debated rather than insults being thrown around or the integrity of the person being attacked. As moderators, we do everything we can not to bring our personal views into whether or not something is going to be removed, and we don't remove posts because we disagree with the content - we remove posts that are counter-productive to the conversation at hand in one way or another. When a post crosses from discussion to attack, that's usually when you're going to see it disappear.

To use your point about what if you said "MAGA Forever" - well, context is important (as it is with any post) - is that the entire post? Is it intended to bait people into an argument, or is it part of a thought out post? Depending on the context of any post, things can be interpreted very differently. We don't look at posts in a vacuum, so I think it would be wise not to answer that in a vacuum, either (please don't take that as defensive or dismissive, I truly mean what I say).

I love participating in a good discussion/debate with people I disagree with, but what many of us have to remember is that we are dealing with sensitive opinions - not only those who we are talking to, but also with our own opinions. I often step back before responding to give myself a few seconds when I feel like I was attacked - was I attacked, or am I overreacting because this is something I care deeply about? That is a large goal of the updated guidelines - to encourage people to step back and consider the content of what they have written before posting it.
I CANNOT GET OFF MY CAMEL
Joshi 82 AT
721,481
Joshi 82 AT
Posted on 16 March 19 at 08:54
Elite1111111111 said:
Joshi 82 AT said:
Maybe it would add to the quality of the comments in forums by having multiple layers of punishment for violations. (<--- Thinking out loud)

Depending on the violation you get a warning - comment deleted - ban from the thread - 30 day ban from the forum - ban from site.

Also to give the accused a chance to state his case to the moderators/administrators if he/she receives a punishment in any form. Furthermore if someone is reported for a comment or multiple comments and the moderators/administrators don't agree that they could let the person know their reasoning for not punishing a fellow community member.
The issue is that it's always been done that way (in what I've seen in my year on the team), but there are always going to be people that claim we came in heavy-handed when we barely ever went above warnings and post deletions. Unfortunately, most mod action resulted in what happened in this thread - a page long argument about the warning/deletion.

Essentially, I think people have gone so long where the mods have barely stepped in that they see any mod action as coming out of left field.
I see your point.
Hmm, another "feature" for better transparency and therefore (hopefully) better understanding could be a short statement/one liner from the modteam under a deleted comment " Deleted because of name calling" (as an example, whatever the violation in reality is). Other users see not only that the comment was deleted, but also the specific reasoning behind it, other than guessing "yeah, he probably wrote some nonsense"...
Or before deleting a comment, PM to user that he has to rephrase his statement (plus given reasoning behind it), otherwise it will be deleted.