New Forum Code of Conduct

[BrokenSky]

Which specific part of the rules give you that impression?

I’m seeing a lot of fairly reasonable stuff - don’t be racist, don’t spam, don’t attack the devs etc.

Well you're allowed to say things like:
"I really like this decision - [Dev] did a great job"
but not
"I really dislike this decision - [Dev] did a bad job".
Because one is a 'personal attack' and the other isn't, even though the actual content is the same.

It's a part of why I'll very rarely post any kind of meaningful praise of the devs, except as a contrary response to another user posting criticism I don't agree with - because what I feel is fundamentally necessary for meaningful discussion (basic rule of thumb - if I couldn't say the same thing in reverse then I can't say this) collides with the forum rules about what you can't say (see above) - it's obviously far harder to give constructive praise than constructive criticism, so I tend to end up not giving praise at all (well - very rarely; I will occasionally say something looks good in a dev diary when they announce something people have been asking for for years).

Then, of course, the forum becomes a less pleasant place for the devs (because it's filled with deep and well thought out essays on why everything they've ever done is terrible), so the rules clamp down on "toxicity", which results in even harsher restrictions on what kind of criticism (and hence also praise) you can give.
The exception to this is people who don't care about having a level playing field for conversation in the first place, who praise the devs with utterly non-actionable things which wouldn't fly at all if they gave criticism the same way, which tends to fuel the idea that the forum is just an echo chamber and that the devs only want praise, not real feedback and as a result you get a lot of pushback against the forum culture (which is to say, what they perceive as toxicity), which in turn feeds division and negativity and the whole thing loops.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Well you're allowed to say things like:
"I really like this decision - [Dev] did a great job"
but not
"I really dislike this decision - [Dev] did a bad job".
Because one is a 'personal attack' and the other isn't, even though the actual content is the same.

in both of those examples the second part is totally unnecessary.

we're here to talk about games, not devs, and we're certainly not here to provide them with performance appraisals.

there's an australian expression, 'play the ball, not the man.'

 

[Ghost12345]

Which specific part of the rules give you that impression?

I’m seeing a lot of fairly reasonable stuff - don’t be racist, don’t spam, don’t attack the devs etc.

I can see their point any negative opinion of the games can under my opinion go under the rules Ranting, Trolling, Boycotting.

So any threads that were about Royal court being bad and should not be bought until fixed would be filed under Boycotting which isn't allowed.

Trolling is broad as this is one of the main things it contains:

• Creating threads for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forums

So posting a thread "Royal court is bad and heres why" would likely get people who liked Royal court mad aka causing unrest = trolling so thread locked/removed

And any negative post that doesn't contain "valid" critic would probably be put under Ranting

Bad examples maybe but I suck at conveying what I mean most of the time

 

[BrokenSky]

in both of those examples the second part is totally unnecessary.

we're here to talk about games, not devs, and we're certainly not here to provide them with performance appraisals.

there's an australian expression, 'play the ball, not the man.'

Yes, that's intentional. They're both doing the same two things wrong: attributing the quality of the game to the quality of one of the devs and providing non-actionable (and hence non-constructive) feedback. In one case, though, it gets infracted, whereas the other gets a free pass.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

In one case, though, it gets infracted, whereas the other gets a free pass.

so you're suggesting that praising a dev be an infractable offence? make a post in suggestions and let's see what sort of support it gets

 

[BrokenSky]

so you're suggesting that praising a dev be an infractable offence? make a post in suggestions and let's see what sort of support it gets

I'm saying that there needs to be a middle ground between "nothing" and "permanent infraction".

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I'm saying that there needs to be a middle ground between "nothing" and "permanent infraction".

yeah, permanent's a bit harsh. as i said, 6 and 12 months would be good.

 

[johnty5]

Well you're allowed to say things like:
"I really like this decision - [Dev] did a great job"
but not
"I really dislike this decision - [Dev] did a bad job".

In this example, is "[Dev]" where you'd place an actual named Dev? Because - I've gotta be honest with you - in the latter example, I don't understand why anyone would think that's either ok or useful. I'm totally happy with people who do that getting warnings etc. for it.

 

[johnty5]

I can see their point any negative opinion of the games can under my opinion go under the rules Ranting, Trolling, Boycotting.

So any threads that were about Royal court being bad and should not be bought until fixed would be filed under Boycotting which isn't allowed.

Trolling is broad as this is one of the main things it contains:

• Creating threads for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forums

So posting a thread "Royal court is bad and heres why" would likely get people who liked Royal court mad aka causing unrest = trolling so thread locked/removed

And any negative post that doesn't contain "valid" critic would probably be put under Ranting

Bad examples maybe but I suck at conveying what I mean most of the time

Where on earth are you getting this from? None of those things against the rules.

They've said in this thread's original post, in the rules themselves and repeatedly in staff replies that simply stating negative opinions aren't against the rules.

 

[karasis65]

Which specific part of the rules give you that impression?

I’m seeing a lot of fairly reasonable stuff - don’t be racist, don’t spam, don’t attack the devs etc.

The boycotting part mostly. Even when you say something like this x dlc is bad and buggy/unfinished and is not worth buying they can consider this as boycotting(But is clearly not) and can ban you.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

The boycotting part mostly. Even when you say something like this x dlc is bad and buggy/unfinished and is not worth buying they can consider this as boycotting(But is clearly not) and can ban you.

um, 'it's not worth buying' is NOT the same as 'let's all not buy it because...that'll teach them a lesson.'

 

[johnty5]

The boycotting part mostly. Even when you say something like this x dlc is bad and buggy/unfinished and is not worth buying they can consider this as boycotting(But is clearly not) and can ban you.

That’s not what boycotting means.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

I agree, the "no boycott" rule does not necessarily suppress all criticism. It is still perfectly within the rules to say "I think x is not good and people shouldn't buy it". This rule is more so directed at things like "we should all boycott the game until the devs implement /remove x feature, fix y bug, etc."
Again, I feel like the overall goal of these changes is not to suppress criticism, but to deal with single-issue complainers who constantly hijack the forums for the purpose of soapboxing.

 

[DebbieElla]

Two things:

We tried having warnings that timed out, it did not work. But to clarify: it's only major infractions or repeated minor infractions that will cause a ban. You will not be banned because you swear once, but you might get a temporary ban if you continue to swear even after being asked to stop.

As for the "no boycott" rule, it's not that complicated either. It's more about if someone is actively and purposefully trying to agitate other users to boycott as well, not someone writing "I don't like this game I won't buy the next one". As mentioned before, it's all about context and intent.

 

[brantodb01]

is there a way to see your current strikes?

 

[DebbieElla]

is there a way to see your current strikes?

It's not public knowledge, but you can always PM me or a mod and they'll be able to inform you about your strikes.

 

[BrokenSky]

So I've been sort of trying to work out how to approach this for a while, and the problem is that whenever I'm talking on the forums I feel like I often have to talk around problems (at least the more controversial ones), rather than actually discussing them directly, which is basically the problem. (I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to be less circuitous this one time).

I feel like a lot of the forum rules, especially those made with the 'context and intent' sort of thinking lead to a genuinely unpleasant experience when dealing with moderation. Now I understand the value in giving moderators a lot more power than they need and then trusting them not to abuse it, but it also causes a lot of problems, I think? Mostly "Quis custodiet" problems, I mean.
In particular, it tends to create an amount of ambiguity about what is and isn't acceptable (which permanent infractions is only going to make worse since the cost of being wrong is now even higher), and it creates a dangerous trend not only towards self censorship, but also runs the risk of causing an exacerbating spiral, as what people willingly say shifts, moving what looks risky, and narrowing the window of 'acceptable' opinions to hold.

This does not create an enjoyable forum experience.

These issues especially create problems on topics where Paradox games themselves appear to hold, or at least imply, a particular (arguably offensive) stance on an issue.
To give a couple of (probably the worst) examples, on the HOI4 forum, there is a rules post which disallows discussing any genocide or purges which happened in the period, claiming that none would be added and that asking about them is an infractable offence. This has become a bit of an issue since No Step Back added purge mechanics to the USSR.
Another example is how many paradox games are implicitly or even overtly offensive to several real-world religions; CK3, for instance, mechanically implies that in order to have gay rights in Europe, you need to at the very least disenfranchise all the Catholics, and that getting rid of Catholicism is the only thing you need to do. It also states that in order to become a scholar, you need to commit apostasy - a crime in most forms of Islam, and a rather offensive claim to any religious scientist.
Obviously discussing these kinds of issues in the relevant sub-forums would lead to massive hatchet fights which would end up getting people upset and probably get people infracted. Obviously not discussing them leaves a lot of paradox games in a state where they appear to support or endorse historical or contemporary oppression of various groups.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Obviously discussing these kinds of issues in the relevant sub-forums would lead to massive hatchet fights which would end up getting people upset and probably get people infracted.

that's not obvious at all. if there are elements of games you find offensive you raise them in an appropriate way in the right place.

if people just want to have 'massive hatchet fights' (whatever that means) then they're presumably grownups and are prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Hitchno]

CoC's only end up doing one thing to forums. Killing them, and driving people to forums where CoC's don't exist. Don't believe me? Take a look at the state of DSLreports(broadbandreports), and the trailing death. Or any of the forums relating to historical discussions.

Well whatever, it leads to tiptoeing around issues especially in regards to historical reenactments or Coreplay. And that will drive people away as well, as one person already mentioned that "tiptoeing" around statements because people get offended over xyz thing.

 

[imperial.]

Hello everyone,

For a few months the Community team at Paradox, with the help of our volunteer Moderators, has been reworking the Community Code of Conduct, this document that explains the rules we expect everyone to follow on the forum. Our main focus is to ensure the forum is a safe and fun place for both you and our staff to interact and share your passion for our games. We believe that the forum is a cornerstone of Paradox Interactive’s community and we want to carry on the 20-year-long tradition of developers and players meeting on this platform. Right now, we see forumites leaving, new players avoiding the forum because they don’t feel welcome, developers interacting less and less with the community… We want to change things around and for that we chose to focus our efforts in fostering healthy behaviors on the forum to make sure everyone has an enjoyable experience, and ultimately increase participation. Together with the Community Code of Conduct we are updating our Sanction System to a 3-strikes approach. The rules are remaining roughly the same, but this new system will be less lenient towards repeated offenses (more details below).

It will surely take time, but we trust that these changes will have a positive impact on the forum’s environment. The updated Sanction System will be rolled-out shortly.

In details:
You can (and should!) read the updated Community Code of Conduct HERE. It provides you with clear expectations of the behaviors we welcome on the forum and how we want to interact with you. You will also find a list of Do’s and Don’ts that will help you navigate the behaviors and content prohibited. The Sanction System will now be divided into Minor Infractions and Major Infractions. To put it simply, Minor Infractions will lead to a warning, while Major Infractions will result in a suspension. However, repeated Minor Infractions will transform into a Major Infraction, and there is no more reset period. We give you 3 opportunities to learn from our feedback. At the third Major Infraction, we will consider that you aren’t interested in following our forum rules and it is better to part ways.

NOTE: With the change of Sanction System, it is possible that forum users that accumulated enough sanctions in the previous system automatically end up permanently banned. Do not worry, it is not our intention to retroactively update the sanction system. Our team will review the automatic bans manually to establish the situation and unban anyone that was wrongfully sanctioned because of the change. We understand that it is a major inconvenience and we did our best to limit the risks, but some will inevitably slip through the cracks of cases we didn’t think of and will get automatically banned. If you were banned from the forums and are not able to contact the moderation team, you can appeal the sanction by reaching out to this email: admin@paradoxinteractive.com

Please be patient, we are on it!

So i logged in with the expectation to agree to these terms, my paradox forums are getting a bit ''different''

Now don't get me wrong I like most of them, but these 3 are much.

• Do not comment on moderation decisions publicly.

like right now on this thread? i think if people have a concern they should have the right to discuss it. is that correct?

• Do not necropost, recreate closed threads.

Well if a thread is locked and they have something relevant to add and they cant necropost (use an existing thread) so that means they'd have to recreate the thread, hard to see why that's an issue. If necro posting is not allowed for whatever reason why have the option to post on it in the first place. right?

• Do not call for boycotts and create petitions.

Thats a direct impeachment of free speech, isnt it? had to be posed as questions to not break any new rules right?