Code of Conduct

[Forge]

We should be entering this with the right attitude.
This site is a social experiment.
Can we gather together a group of people whom enjoy video games just for the sake of sharing said enjoyment?
Or do we sink to the bottom of an echo-chamber cesspool and settle in the sediment right next to the gamergate catfish?

Some gas-bubbles will surely rise to the top and pop their noxious fumes in our face due to the nature of the current environment. Occasional outbursts about the smell are to be expected, but they shouldn't rule the day.

[Deliciou5]

You should also add Concern trolling as banned.

Concern Trolling
Noun

1.the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.

2.An an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.

[Onideus]

This doesn't make any sense... how would you even propose to gauge the sincerity behind people's arguments? And it doesn't matter because you can simply gauge the merit of the argument itself. If a person keeps putting forth stupid arguments that make no sense (like you're doing right now) it's easy to determine whether a particular poster is being disingenuous or sincere. If not the later the only thing they've accomplished is "trolling" people into making them look like an idiot... which, isn't actually a form of trolling... unless you count "fail trolling".

[Deliciou5]

I know its hard to understand at first but it becomes obvious when it happens since they have such a shallow view of what they pretend to support. Its never over one post its always people that show flaws with things they are supposed to be supporting as if they were not understanding why they supported in the first place.

Example:I sure do support the second amendment guys! But i do have a lot of concern of the danger of people legally owning guns. MAGA!
Example2: Please lets stop talking about this because the mods might might get upset!
Example3:I am have been a lurker(qualifier) for years but i am deeply concerned with the way this thread has been going and.....

It's never one instance, you see a pattern of time wasting derailing behavior over multiple posts, these people usually end up getting banned over just regular "trolling". The rule is more so to prevent behavior than to spot it, so if people read the rules they know that showing concern won't get people on your side only the merits of your argument.

Its more of a..."Manipulative behavior won't be tolerated"...than..."lets ban people over this." Having a rule about it goes a long way to setting a tone for the forums even if its not enforced very often or spotted. Its more of a principal of telling people we are on to their dishonest games.

I understand your point about being unable to tell who is authentic or trolling, i guess the same logic applies to all trolling. Yet there are many forums with no trolling rules.

[Domingos]

I understand your position on this but I think Onideus is right. There is no way for you to qualify how honest an argument is, it's up to the people to interact or not with the bad arguments (search: bait)

Also, your "Example 1" is a very bad example. I have been and have witnessed others being disregarded because of the fact that we don't fully agree with someone. I won't bring politics into this, so I won't even engage with your actual example, but imagine the following situation, which is true to me:

"I love RPGs but I don't like pokemon. For me it's a game that's too easy and bare minimum. It doesn't bother me that you like it though"

This argument online has had me labeled as a troll or hater, even though I do honestly feel like it is a value argument that the game is too easy. However, if too many people flock around my comment, they might label me as a troll, which would engage in the "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy. I don't think it would be fair to get banned or penalized for this comment.

[Forge]

Fair and consistent moderating will take care of most problems, instead of chasing moving targets with moving goal-posts.

[Chairman Meow]

Having a rule about it goes a long way to setting a tone for the forums

The only tone wanting to ban people for subjective reasons sets is that your forum is trying to be ResetEra 2.0. I prefer free and open discussion and if there are any problems that arise they can be dealt with without resorting to banning so many people the rest are afraid to say anything. Sometimes less is more.

[Fexel]

After reading that CoC, I'm liking this site more already!

[Deliciou5]

The only tone wanting to ban people for subjective reasons sets is that your forum is trying to be ResetEra 2.0. I prefer free and open discussion and if there are any problems that arise they can be dealt with without resorting to banning so many people the rest are afraid to say anything. Sometimes less is more.

You are right trolling itself is very subjective and hard to spot, just that on the Reddit /thedonald we have a rule against concern trolling from others trying to derail topics intentionally. But maybe its better if we don't have this rule.

[Feminazi_that_coming]

I prefer that instead of banning people because you don't consider their arguments leftist or rightist enough. I totally agree with Domingos and Chairman Meow it's up to the people to decide the value of comment, not you and whatever pseudo logical fallacy you have come with.
"Concern trolling" sounds more like, hey this guy doesn't think enough like me, he must be with the enemy, let's ban him.

[Asura]

I am glad there will be content that is free from politically incentivised content. Keep the "injustice seekers" on social media, and out of games. I am tired of content creators and content getting flagged for totally benign reasons. A big thank you to Jeremy and Linko as well as the rest of the staff and mods.

[Metalcorpse]

A suggestion, change the rule from Do Not Post People's Details to Doxing of any kind is prohibited. I feel like it would extend the meaning of what you're looking to convey to the readers.

[Spect3r]

Can i add a link to another gaming forum in my signature?
Is a forum dedicated to collectors edition, gaming collectibles, etc.

[Slvrbuu]

It seems a bit overly-encompassing, yet a bit vague, but hopefully only unbiased moderators are able to properly apply the rules as needed, and not overly so. A strong community needs a little bit of flexibility, otherwise it becomes to ridged and starts to break into pieces. I will endeavor to keep myself on the right side. I wouldn't mind an open area of communication for people who do get banned to be able to argue the ban if they feel it was a bit zealous, and other people can chime in, but I can also see how that may lead to an area of dog-pilling and abuse.

[Pensive Scarlet]

Glossing over everything I see here, perhaps the best way to work the trickier rules out would be to allow some leeway on how games affect a person on a personal level? For instance, I could sort out an article about how I identify with Tina/Terra from Final Fantasy VI because she is a character literally caught between two forms. I have the discipline and restraint to do so without injecting any partisan political stances, agendas, or jibes.

[KingDiQ]

I feel like having an unmoderated thread or a looser moderated thread relative to the others on this forum is bad idea. There would be nothing stopping other Game Journos from taking bits and pieces from the thread and writing a hit piece. They can use whatever people are saying on that thread to label this site as whatever they want. That would reflect poorly on Jeremy and the people involved in this project and it could make it harder to gather advertisement partners.

[The_Mad_Pirate]

It's a fair, common sense policy.
Yeah, I get the controversy about the no politics point, and I get why people get upset about it, especially when GameJournoPro sites and devs do nothing but pander socialist politics. But , then again, that's exactly why Video Games sites have become a cesspool of petty ideological battlefields instead of a site for discussing passion about hobbies and escape reality. All in all, it's a very on spot rule. After, too discuss ideology in video games...well...that's what the rest of the internet is for.

Cheers

[Hyperweasle]

The rules are quite clear. Their post was directly political in nature, which goes against the core value of the site. If people wish to discuss 'SJW' and the like, they will find their posts edited or deleted. It's quite clear that the core value is video game talk, no politics. I hope people can take the rules and core value of the site into consideration.

I don't run this site, so this may not be possible right now. However in the future it might be nice if posts were not deleted but more like quarantined (unless a post had harmful content or personal information), to allow the user base to help keep the moderators somewhat accountable. I'm not attacking you or saying you are doing a bad job, but in the future if we get more moderators, it is possible a few could start abusing that power.

It's tough for a user base to hold the moderators accountable if the posts are straight up deleted, instead if there was a system to quarantine them, it would allow the forums to stay clean from undesirable posts while allowing the user base to help kinda moderate the moderators a little. I have never known of a site actually doing this, so it might be kinda neat to create a distinct moderation system to differentiate ourselves from other sites.