Some notes on the new community rules

Hey, we’re rolling out some new forum rules here on GB. We’ve been working on these off and on for a fairly long time now, and, well, here we are. I wanted to highlight some of the changes and allow for some commentary on the part of the community. That said, as always, we don’t allow comments on specific moderations, so if you want to call out a moderator for a recent action or say that we should overturn a ban, please keep it to a PM. Keep your comments focused on your concerns or comments about the new rules.

The current rules shouldn’t matter to the vast majority of our site users who have never found themselves on the receiving end of a moderation PM, and the new rules probably still won’t apply to you if you’re a cool person who can converse intelligently and avoid being a jerk, which remains the primary rule.

Here are some of the modified or new sections. You can refer to the old rules here if you want to compare and contrast.

As noted in the terms of service, we reserve the right to “at any time and for any reason, without giving you prior notice, restrict or terminate your access” to Giant Bomb. In plain talk, that means we have the ability to ban users, either temporarily or permanently. We likewise claim the right to delete any comment and lock or delete any thread on these forums at any time.

In practice, we do our best to be both dispassionate and fair in moderating these boards and any chat discussions. That said, moderation is inherently subjective. The final decision on any moderation is left to the discretion of the moderators. We reserve the right to take context into account when making those decisions. In other words, we may moderate topics about controversial or heated subjects more strictly than we would topics about less serious matters.

This sounds severe, but isn’t actually a large change. The terms of service have always had the quote above in them, but it was never reflected in the forum rules. We don’t currently and we have no future plans to blaze through these forums and ban people or lock threads without reasons that we feel are sufficient to justify those actions. But we do want to make it explicit that we reserve the right to exercise those options when we feel it’s necessary. Your opinion of “necessary” will likely differ from ours at times, and you’re welcome to bring those concerns up with the moderators in a PM, but the moderation staff, by necessity, will have the final say on matters like this.

A note on locking threads: we don’t particularly like doing this any more than you enjoy seeing it happen, but we prefer locking threads to banning people. If we feel that a thread is going off the rails with people yelling at each other, though, we can and will lock it to let people cool off. Sometimes we’ll lock or delete a new thread just based on past experience: if a similar thread led to disaster yesterday, we’ll probably lock it if you try to post it today.

Don’t interpret our locking a thread as a moderation strike against you; threads started with the best of intentions can be led awry by posters coming to it later. If you repeatedly try to post a topic that has already been locked, though, we’ll probably prevent you from posting at all while we sort things out.

NO flaming, trolling, disruptive activity or posts which encourage such behavior: Includes but not limited to posting inflammatory comments with the intent of starting an argument or flame war, quoting inflammatory posts or comments made off-site, or attempting to derail conversations with dismissive or off-topic posts.

We see a fair amount of people who think it’s cool to come into a discussion thread and say stuff like “Why would anyone care about this?” That’s unnecessary and unwelcome. If you don’t want to participate in a thread or comment section, then don’t.

On the editorial side of things, the editors will decide what is and isn’t appropriate to post to the site; if you feel that something isn’t up your alley, your best bet is to ignore it. If you really feel strongly about a piece of content, take it up with the editor (or Jeff) in a PM.

Just keep in mind that one of our most popular videos from this time last year featured nothing but a video of llamas. There is and will continue to be non-gaming material on the site; it's fine to not care about it or even dislike it, but excessive complaining about it at this point is unproductive.

NO victimization of others or use of discriminatory language: Includes but not limited to personal attacks against other users, demeaning or unnecessary commentary on anyone’s physical appearance, or any racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic slurs or statements. If you wouldn’t say something to someone while shaking their hand and looking them in the eyes, then you probably shouldn’t post it as a comment. Similarly, you may not release the personal information of anyone, site user or otherwise, without their consent. Don’t be creepy.

Hopefully most of this is clear enough. It’s fine to be critical of a staff member or site guest or someone elsewhere on the web, but if you’re going to get personal about something, you’ll probably wind up saying hello to us in a PM rather quickly. Engage with ideas, not appearances. If the bulk of your disagreement with someone is based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation, then you should find somewhere else to post entirely.

Note that this can and will be applied to seemingly positive comments, as well; if your only thought on a guest is “well he or she is super attractive!” then it’s probably best to find something more substantial to say.

NO Dismissive labeling: If you disagree with another poster’s opinion, politely respond to them and give them specifics as to why. Use of terms like “social justice warrior,” “MRA,” “neckbeard,” “hipster,” “weeabo” and any other pejorative label intended to disregard someone’s statement without actually engaging with it will be considered dismissive and your comment will likely be deleted.

Don’t call people names. Even if you write three paragraphs of eloquent prose after insulting someone, we'll probably axe your whole comment anyway.

NO aggressive, intimidating, or condescending comments: Disagreements are a natural occurrence anywhere discourse occurs, but we do ask that any threads where such disagreements occur are kept civil and polite. Shouting down or insulting users who disagree with you will not be tolerated.

We don’t ask that everyone roleplays as a Care Bear on these boards, but we do expect everyone to respect the opinions of others without being abrasive or insulting. We've had more than a few people come to us explaining that they feel uncomfortable about posting after being intimidated by certain posters who, while remaining within the letter of the law, still manage to silence others through sheer jerkishness. It's fine to be passionate, and it's fine to argue about stuff that you feel is imporant (within reason), but keep in mind that you're talking to real people when you do so. Just remember Raylan Givens' parable.

Let me state again what I've said before in more than a few private messages: this isn't a free speech zone. The First Amendment does not apply here. Myself and the moderators will act as we feel necessary to ensure that this is a safe and welcoming place to discuss games and other topics for as many of our users as possible. We take no pleasure in banning people or locking topics, but it's an unfortunate necessity on a forum as active as this one.

I’d be happy to answer general feedback about our forum rules or hear more general concerns about our community in this thread. That said, I reserve the right to (somewhat ironically) lock the thread if I or the moderators are not around to answer questions regarding the new rules and unlock it later on. I'll likely lock it permanently at some point in the next day or two.

Just to clarify, but this is just explaining the changes and not the final "forum rules" thing, right? Anyway, all this seems reasonable and clear to me, though, in light of recent events, you may want to put something in concerning discussing the private lives of others.

@sgtsphynx: Rorie also posted the new Forum Rules.

@finaldasa: Yeah, I just saw that, and skimmed through the parts not listed here.

Hopefully people read the new rules to make Rorie's, the mod's and community's lives easier. I think the new rules are written well and easily understandable.

Keep up the great work Rorie and mods. Your effort here is appreciated.

Also, thanks for reminding me of the llama video. So cute!

@sgtsphynx: There's this bit:

Similarly, you may not release the personal information of anyone, site user or otherwise, without their consent. Don’t be creepy.

Sounds all good to me. The don't be a jerk rule has always been a sensible way of gauging what is appropriate behavior and what is not.

One quick thing. Something I have noticed lately is people with 1 - 5 posts suddenly cropping up on controversial topics and fanning the flames. What they say is not inherently antagonistic, but it's strange how many people seem to all of a sudden decide to stop lurking and become contributors when the topic has to do with sexism, or the GamerGate debacle. I don't know if this should even be moderated in any way, maybe just something to keep an eye on.

Cheers Rorie

@onlykris: I feel posting personal information (address or more sensitive info) isn't the same thing as speculating on/claiming who someone is fucking, and am merely pointing out that that could use some expanding.

We generally welcome new members of the site, so long as they abide by the forum rules. The post counts are clearly visible and should provide some context as to how interested someone actually is in the community as opposed to whether they're just coming by to stir up trouble. If you see a young account being antagonistic, best to flag them for the moderators to check into.

@sgtsphynx: We would consider that one and the same.

We're fairly likely to interpret that clause liberally. If we need to be more specific we'll update it in the future. The example you cite would certainly be something we would moderate, and indeed have done so multiple times.

YES. Thank you.

This one has been driving me nuts for a while. Seriously people, if you don't like something, then don't post stupid useless posts saying as much. It's not that hard. If you have something constructive to add, even if it is about how you dislike something (say you describe why you dislike a game mechanic or something), then sure, post away. The number of times I've seen people go into otherwise productive threads and post an awful quip that either was condescending or just plain dumb has been increasing a lot recently so this rule makes perfect sense. Any post that is the equivalent of "This game is garbage and the only people that like it are poopoo heads" is not a productive post. Nor is a passive-aggressive sounding post like the example Rorie used.

But really, take 30 seconds and think about what you are posting. If you can determine it is actually adding something to the thread, then go for it. If not, maybe think twice about posting or perhaps think of a way to improve the post so that it is productive and useful. It's not that difficult of a thing to do and it improves the level of conversation a great deal.

I'm fine with these new rules. Hopefully they'll make things more clear about what is and isn't allowed on these forums.

@rorie: @finaldasa: I had a feeling you would, and I know you have, and I am not trying to be argumentative; I was just trying to point out a potential misunderstanding. Anyway, as I have said numerous times, you and the rest of the moderation staff do an excellent, and sometimes thankless, job. So keep up the good work.

Just don't take out our ability to say fuck lol

Yup. I always liked the "no thread whining" rule on NeoGAF: No one is allowed to complain about a thread being made on the basis that the topic isn't worth a thread, it's always up to the mods to decide what stays up and what does not. This seems to be something along those lines.

Those are actual photographs of users we've moderated in the past, you know. Dogs make up a large portion of Giant Bomb's audience.

Cool, glad y'all are publishing this stuff so we all know and have fair warning. Keep it up

Everything mentioned seems fair to me. Also, I can't believe I never watched that llama video. Thank you for making my day.

The rules are all pretty much what things were before, however the note to take away is things are going to be enforced far more. GB was never a safe haven for unpopular beliefs like many people seem to think however some conversations,thoughts and ideas were in a grey area to moderate.

The tightening of the rules helps this and put things into a more black and white judgment. Things that are grey areas in life/law are not grey areas here on the site. If it is seen as a bad thing it will be judge as such.

So the only thing is for the Moderators keep their senses on what's acceptable and not acceptable sharp while users who see such unwanted things flag what they mods may have missed so they may judge and take action where needed.

The rules have not changes really they have just been clarified to a finer (maybe even more legal) point.

Hey @rorie,

Quick question, re: Duplicate threads- What is the official forum rule on Necroing threads?

I've seen a lot of old threads resurrected and locked very quickly lately. Which I can understand as it's often new accounts doing the necroing for whatever dubious reasons they often do, but you also have this rule that people should not create duplicate threads.

So if someone wants to talk about an old topic, what should they do? Resurrect the existing or start a new one? And if it's conditional, what the are the guidelines for when they should do either the former or the latter?

The rest of the rules seem fair and straightforward, which is how the best ones are.

Really, all of this was covered under "Don't be a jerk."

Sign o' the times I suppose.

Generally we'd prefer for you to make a new thread in this case. Generally speaking I think that if a thread's more than a month old, you should probably make a new one rather than bump the old one. We might make exceptions in game forums that have not seen a huge amount of activity, though.

@sinusoidal: Unfortunately, some people just didn't understand that simple rule, I'd say these just clarify it.

Oh yeah?

...My god I've been on this site a long time.

@rorie: Concerning "“at any time and for any reason, without giving you prior notice, restrict or terminate your access”

I don't inherently have any problem with this, I would hope the prospect of working with users could still be explored before jumping to these measures. I realize this rule does have a purpose especially in cases of spam bots that stroll through at night. There are cases where bogus accounts need to be terminated. I guess I would just like to see all options explored when something like this is on the table. I feel given a chance to address the situation and see things from another perspective may be better afforded by working with users first. A ban in the heat of the moment may lose that teachable moment if that makes sense. ( this vastly varies from situation to situation I am more speaking in the context of regular posting users who are ordinarily within the rules of the boards but slip up.)

Would be good if we could get an official stance on "necroing" threads. A few years ago when I asked some mod I got the response that iy was preferable to search for and post in existing threads rather than making a new one, even if there had been a while since the last post. More recently I've seen older threads getting locked when they've been revisited.

Of course there should be no doubt that it's not useful to respond to a six year old thread where the OP asks for personal, technical help with something, but is there a rule for more general threads like "what's your favorite JRPG" or something like that where it's largely irrelevant whether the OP is still around or not, since it's a discussion between the currently active users of the thread rather than direct replies to the OP?

@rorie Well I sure hope this extends to the phrase "anime is for jerks" as well , because by god that irritates me a lot.

Except in extreme cases, we always give people plenty of chances to modify their behavior via warnings and temporary suspensions. We aren't going to jump on people with an immediate ban without a very good reason.

Yeah, well hopefully some of those who insist on skirting around the edges of good taste for whatever reason will now get the hint that going out of their way to be a jerk is not productive or welcome.

Sounds good. In light of recent events I think the rules need to be as clear as possible. As always, good work @rorie.

@wolfgame: The rules explain out what would generally happen to you if you break any rules. We have a system in place so no one is just banned silently, but we do reserve that right if someone earns it. Generally though if someone breaks a rule and is moderated, they'll know about it.

@fisk0 I think Rorie's rule from a previous post in this thread is about right. If something is a few months old it's best to start a new one. Most of the locked threads that are necroed have been years old and not worth keeping around. If you're not sure and don't want to just necro a thread to have it locked, feel free to PM us.

@fisk0: This has been covered in this topic already if you read through it.

@toowalrus said:

@rorie said:

We take no pleasure in banning people or locking topics, but it's an unfortunate necessity on a forum as active as this one.

Oh yeah?

...My god I've been on this site a long time.

That last one is a gem.

@mb: Apparently I hadn't refreshed the thread in a while when I got to the end of it and started typing my post, sorry about that.

What Chaser said. We never ban someone immediately based on a "slip up." We'll temporarily suspend's someone's posting ability, send them a PM asking them to review the rules, and the vast majority of the time they're good to resume posting after acknowledging that they've read them. It's disappointing when people get riled up in those PMs, but we do our best to give people a lot of slack. I've seen people go back and forth in a moderation thread 20 or 30 times; it's frustrating for us to have to do that, but we generally prefer to try and keep people on the boards rather than ban them. That said, if someone gets a moderation PM and gets too heated and asks for a ban, we'll generally honor that request. We have patience, but only so much of it.

Bans usually are the result of continued bad behavior over a long period of time until we eventually come to a straw that breaks the camel's back, or are so obviously warranted in the case of a new user posting awful stuff that we'll just ban them without the PM.

Gotcha, thank you!

If I may make a request, if you feel it worthwhile maybe you ought to consider including this best practice guideline info in the new rules somewhere?

Necroing a thread improperly seems like a pretty easy mistake for many well meaning users (especially newer ones) to make imo. If it's in the rules it might help cut down on it happening. Even if it only happens 10% less often, that's still a potentially lighter workload for the mods and potentially less hurt/confused feelings on the part of some users for a one time investment of a few sentences.

These all seem like very positive changes.

Really it all just seems like clarification and better enforcement of what the rules have always been. Which is fine.

I'm absolutely cool with all this, but I hate when people I like start to sound like "the man". It makes me wanna bo up and do something stupid..

@slag: Sure, I'll see if I can work it in there. I think there's a mention of it in there somewhere already. FWIW, though, necroing threads is not something that really gets anyone in trouble; we'll ask someone not to do it if we see it, but I don't think we keep track of it or anything unless it's clear that someone's not getting the message. I can't remember a case where it was ever a real problem.

Trust me, I hate the fact that this stuff is necessary. But there have definitely been a few cases over the last year or so where some portions of the community have decided to become very unpleasant very quickly, and I'm not just talking about brand-new driveby accounts. We can't control what people say elsewhere on the web, but it's been clear for a while that we needed a bit more flexibility in terms of quickly dealing with trouble users and I think the new rules give us that.

I take offense with this:

Sometimes we’ll lock or delete a new thread just based on past experience: if a similar thread led to disaster yesterday, we’ll probably lock it if you try to post it today.

This is shooting with a bazooka at something that might become a problem.

In trying to make the forums more welcoming this accomplishes the exact opposite. I have had zero interest whatsoever in even trying to discuss anything remotely controversial on these boards where the moderation team preemptively decides to not trust users to be respectful. This has happened a lot in the last couple months. And now it's put officially in writing that this will continue.

And there have been multiple examples of threads being locked or deleted based on this principle for no reasons that had several dozens posts with very few inflammatory comments. This is putting your head in the sand long enough for people to forget about a particular subject. This is lazy.

I cannot and will never agree with that approach.

@rorie:

Great, Thank you very much!

I realize it isn't something people necessarily get in trouble for doing, but I do think that clarification of the duplicate thread rule will help clear up a lot of confusion about the right way to do it.

Thanks again!

Animals learning how to use the internet would explain a fair number of Youtube comments.

@rorie: What is the process for contacting the mods regarding a post getting deleted? I had one post in a thread a while ago removed, and really wanted to just ask specifically what it was that was against the rules, but I didn't want to bother all of you who I know are all constantly busy with a pretty minor thing.

Is there, basically, a polite and unobstructive way we can follow up if we're ever moderated?

We're generally open to new topics being created if we feel that they'll avoid the pitfalls of whatever we previously locked, but that does generally require the passage of time. That line is intended to make it clear that if we lock a topic about a particular subject, the correct response is not to just start a new one right away. Give everyone some time to breathe and come back to it when something new has happened.

A month or two ago we were indeed locking a fair amount of threads about the Quinn situation, largely because they involved both personal information and were a magnet for some pretty awful posts. That's evolved into a situation where we've recently had posts about GamerGate issues reaching 400+ posts that were actually surprisingly civil. But it's the nature of topics about controversial subjects to attract people spoiling for an argument, and we'll reserve the right to tell everyone to take a break when that gets out of hand. Maybe that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but sometimes that bathwater gets pretty shitty. And I don't like babies anyway.

@joshwent: this link will let you contact all of the active mods and myself if you ever have a question or concern.

@joshwent: That's in our forum's FAQs, which you can find here. There's a "mod blast" link in there, which will start a new PM with all the mods added to the conversation.

@rorie: Hey mate, is it possible I could some clarification or advice in regards to swearing? I've found myself in the deep end in the past a couple of times seemingly for just using some hard language to drill home a point while never actively swearing in the direction of someone. I've been posting in this forum a long time and it's only come up a few times in recent years, would you advise I cut out swearing in my posts altogether to avoid possible confusion of aggression or something?