Rule Modification/Addition Against Spoiling Movies, Shows, etc.

[eueuq 188 / 2,353]

On occasion, people have decided to post spoilers for a movie or show within our communication platforms. More recently, it is with the new Avengers movie. While I do not care at all about the new Avengers movie nor do I believe any spoilers someone could send would be something I care for, it is clearly something most people have a problem with. Moderators are semi-moderating these instances which should not be the case since it is not in the rules nor is it in the punishment guidelines.

 

Solution:

Add an additional rule.

Quote

Spoiling Media
Do NOT post anything that includes spoilers of media (i.e. movies, shows, etc.) on the forums or in private messages outside of a built in spoiler feature and without explicit warnings with it. This criterion also applies to signatures, profile pictures, and banners.

This additional rule would be applied to Teamspeak and Discord as well. It would be punished in the same way that inappropriate content is (supposed to be) punished.

 

If someone can come up with a modification of the Inappropriate Content rule that would include spoiling media, that would also be a solution. However, I could not think of a way to word it correctly alongside the already existing criteria.

Edited April 27, 2019 by eueuq

[Liloz01 1,256 / 19,825]

Moved to the correct subforum. (General Suggestions -> Moderation Suggestions)

 

Please use this subforum for rule suggestions for the Forums/Discords and TeamSpeak 3.

 

Also, @motorsteak. Pls do.

[Leks 2,304 / 26,632]

Honestly at this point it should be common sense, and if you're so fucking stupid to not have any, you probably should be punished.
I don't really check the general gfl discords unless pinged, but if I end up seeing a spoiler, I will delete it and warn the user. Just because it doesn't cover in the rules it doesn't mean it's a good practice.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Leks said:

Honestly at this point it should be common sense, and if you're so fucking stupid to not have any, you probably should be punished.
I don't really check the general gfl discords unless pinged, but if I end up seeing a spoiler, I will delete it and warn the user. Just because it doesn't cover in the rules it doesn't mean it's a good practice.

 

This is my view on it as well. 

[eueuq 188 / 2,353]

19 minutes ago, Leks said:

Honestly at this point it should be common sense, and if you're so fucking stupid to not have any, you probably should be punished.
I don't really check the general gfl discords unless pinged, but if I end up seeing a spoiler, I will delete it and warn the user. Just because it doesn't cover in the rules it doesn't mean it's a good practice.

A majority of our rule set is made up of things that should be "common sense". Do they not have value in the form of a rule and can be removed just because it is "common sense"? Keep in mind we have rules and punishment guidelines for a reason. If you start making exceptions and enforce rules that are not within the public realm, then moderators lose their credibility and the whole system collapses. Rules are put in place to restrict moderators from acting outside of their scope (i.e. what you described). It informs users of what they can and cannot do, even if it is "common sense". Anything outside of this is not a "good practice" and will continue to be a problem if moderators are allowed to moderate in this manner.

 

I will also take this time to remind you that you are DL. I personally do not think DLs (or any rank outside of the explicit moderation team) should be doing moderation work aside from their own division's boundaries since that is not their job.

Edited April 27, 2019 by eueuq

[Guest]

3 hours ago, eueuq said:

I will also take this time to remind you that you are DL. I personally do not think DLs (or any rank outside of the explicit moderation team) should be doing moderation work aside from their own division's boundaries since that is not their job.

I don't mind if DLs want to help out, as long as they follow the same guidelines that normal mods do.

[Leks 2,304 / 26,632]

9 hours ago, eueuq said:

 

I will also take this time to remind you that you are DL. I personally do not think DLs (or any rank outside of the explicit moderation team) should be doing moderation work aside from their own division's boundaries since that is not their job.

You're right, I'm just going to patiently wait for a mod to get online while you guys post loli pics or whatever cause it's not my job : )

 

 

9 hours ago, eueuq said:

Rules are put in place to restrict moderators from acting outside of their scope (i.e. what you described).

Isn't that why we have a moderation team leader? Lol

 

 

To add up to what I was saying, here's a prime example of a place where in the rules it doesn't explicitly say "Don't sPoIl mOvIEs"

 

https://prnt.sc/nhp31h

 

(Screenshot from a Reddit user)

[eueuq 188 / 2,353]

5 hours ago, motorsteak said:

I don't mind if DLs want to help out, as long as they follow the same guidelines that normal mods do.

I would have no issue with this, but I have seen way too many situations involving non-mods with moderation powers (i.e. DLs, TAs, etc.) where they did not follow guidelines and went unquestioned (you should know at least of one of those situations involving a certain TA and the shoutbox). If they want to moderate, they can take the time to apply and get trained properly just as everyone else has to.

 

6 minutes ago, Leks said:

You're right, I'm just going to patiently wait for a mod to get online while you guys post loli pics or whatever cause it's not my job : )

Yes, because that is how everyone else has to deal with it. Your job is to handle your division as a DL, not moderate. Just because you have moderation powers, it does not mean you should use them, especially while untrained (i.e. enforcing rules that do not exist). If you believe mods are inactive/do not do their job correctly, then you would apply. I also have no idea what loli pictures have to do with this conversation.

 

6 minutes ago, Leks said:

Isn't that why we have a moderation team leader? Lol

The mod TL acts after-the-fact (if at all) while rules are a constant effect. Also, I would like to see a TL try to manage a moderation team without any ruleset in place. I am sure enforcement would be very consistent and the team itself would be very stable.

 

 

I do not dictate any of this and my opinion does not matter to anyone so it means next to nothing. It is just how I think it should be done and is semi-off-topic. If you want to moderate poorly, go ahead since no one will stop you.

[Leks 2,304 / 26,632]

8 minutes ago, eueuq said:

Your job is to handle your division as a DL, not moderate. Just because you have moderation powers, it does not mean you should use them

I won't do Moderators job, but when I see something that's obviously rule-breaking, trust me, I will use them. That's such a dumb argument, it's like saying the head director of the FBI should let a crime happen because it's the fucking cops job to arrest people. Stop trying to bureaucratize this community. It's a gaming community and being a jerk has no excuse. If you have disruptive behaviour, it doesn't make you exempt from being punished, just because "iT'S nOt iN tHe RuLeS".

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Leks said:

If you have disruptive behaviour, it doesn't make you exempt from being punished, just because "iT'S nOt iN tHe RuLeS".

 

 

+1

[Liloz01 1,256 / 19,825]

The direction this post took is aids.

 

Let me get it back on track. The proposal is to, in some way, add something about spoilers not being allowed or having to be in a spoiler tag to the ruleset (through appending a rule, creating a rule or at least writing it in the moderation guidelines).

 

12 hours ago, Leks said:

Stop trying to bureaucratize this community. It's a gaming community

While this may be true it is not a reason to not add to our ruleset in order to make it better, more enforceable and more understandable for Moderators+ and users alike.

 

14 hours ago, Leks said:

To add up to what I was saying, here's a prime example of a place where in the rules it doesn't explicitly say "Don't sPoIl mOvIEs"

But... League of Legends do, at least far better than we do as of right now? They have extensive codes of conduct, rules, and terms. It is greatly outlined to not indulge in behaviors to worsen another persons experience in any way (sharing spoilers for the sake of sharing spoilers). As of right now, we don't have anything close to similar. (find our rules here, find their full terms here and summoner's code of conduct here), see the difference?

 

23 hours ago, Leks said:

Honestly at this point it should be common sense, and if you're so fucking stupid to not have any, you probably should be punished.

While this may be true it is not a reason to not add to our ruleset in order to make it better, more enforceable and more understandable for Moderators+ and users alike.

 

Edit(s):

1. +1 from me for adding this "rule" in at least some way.
2. Grammarly was fucking me.

[Guest]

Im gonna look at this more tonight when i get home. It could already be considered in the ruleset with rules 0 and 1 and maybe others depending on how you explain it. But yeah, it could be easily added, next time please stay on topic and avoid telling people what jobs they can and can't do in threads like these as it can muddle up the conversation. 

[VilhjalmrF 2,099 / 30,684]

Add #spoilers channel, problem solved. If someone spoils a movie in any other channel besides that one then they should be punished. Just my suggestion though.

[eueuq 188 / 2,353]

11 hours ago, Leks said:

That's such a dumb argument, it's like saying the head director of the FBI should let a crime happen because it's the fucking cops job to arrest people. Stop trying to bureaucratize this community. It's a gaming community and being a jerk has no excuse. If you have disruptive behaviour, it doesn't make you exempt from being punished, just because "iT'S nOt iN tHe RuLeS".

This is all a conversation for another day/within PMs. As much as I would like to go back and forth on this, I do not want to derail this thread any further. However, if you want my response, here (if you plan on responding back, do it elsewhere please):

 

The FBI does have the authority to arrest people depending on the situation, not just the police. However, the head director would not be making the arrest regardless because that is not his job. He could if he wanted to, but I presume he would send out someone from his team to handle it (AKA how all hierarchies of power operate). Also, "should let a crime happen" implies the crime has not happened yet which is not applicable to this conversation.

Random analogies aside, without at least some form of bureaucracy, this community would be plunged into complete chaos. It being a "gaming" community does not suggest that it cannot be bureaucratically operated, even to a small degree. Regardless, you make it sound as though I am pushing for this 100%, when in reality I am only addressing a single element of the big picture that directly helps the user base. Also keep in mind that GFL is a business (to my knowledge) so profit and growing the community is a top priority. Best way to do that IMO is formalize our practices within staff+ to some degree since a lack of consistency is a deal-breaker for a lot of people. There is a necessary balance to everything.

What is the objective standard of someone "being a jerk"? What is the objective standard of "disruptive behavior"? Both of these are inherently subjective criteria and cannot be moderated fairly without establishing a ruleset (AKA what we have and what this thread is supposed to be about). 99.9% of "disruptive behavior" is covered under current rules and this new rule if added. Anything outside of that cannot be punished. If you got arrested and sent to prison for a non-existent law of hurting someone's feelings, I can guarantee that you would not be in a happy mood.

 

 

2 hours ago, motorsteak said:

Im gonna look at this more tonight when i get home. It could already be considered in the ruleset with rules 0 and 1 and maybe others depending on how you explain it. But yeah, it could be easily added, next time please stay on topic and avoid telling people what jobs they can and can't do in threads like these as it can muddle up the conversation. 

I do not think rule 1 would apply at all, but it could fall under rule 0 technically. However, rule 0 is not (and should not be) enforced by moderators due to it being self-enforcing by nature. This is the problem within this situation since I assume a vast majority of the user base would want people who spoil media to be punished in some fashion. I do not have an issue with it being a rule and enforced compared to rule 0 simply because it is pretty clean-cut as to what the scope of it is if the rule is written correctly (I will mention this below).

 

I was giving my opinion on one aspect of moderation, specifically who should be doing the moderating. While semi-off-topic, it still pertains to the conversation to some degree. As I said above, though, I am trying to move the conversation elsewhere for the sake of keeping this thread from derailing any further.

 

2 hours ago, VilhjalmrF said:

Add #spoilers channel, problem solved. If someone spoils a movie in any other channel besides that one then they should be punished. Just my suggestion though.

This suggestion is in relation to all communication platforms, not just Discord. While you could technically make a channels of communication for spoilers like a spoiler channel, I do not think this is the best approach, especially when we already have built in spoiler features on Discord and the forums that could be utilized to hide actual spoilers (with warnings alongside it, of course). I also do not think those channels would ever be used. Most people going around spouting spoilers are not doing it with good intentions in mind to begin with and would just say them wherever they please (AKA not exactly solving the problem).

 

 

One thing I want to bring up is this: What exactly would be the scope of this new rule? For example, if three months from now, I send spoilers for the new Avengers movie, would that be punished? How about if I spoil some movie that came out 20 years ago? With this rule, I believe there needs to be some form of "statute of limitations" established since discussion about any form of media could be considered spoiling for those who have not observed it, regardless of how old it may be. I personally believe it should be three months from the time that it comes out for most people, but I would like that to be discussed more.

Edited April 28, 2019 by eueuq

[Guest]

I think the 3 months from the international release date (because things release at different times in different places) for movies and tv shows is fair. Just provide the appropriate documentation on the international release date if possible.

[k2nod 198 / 6,333]

I have the same opinion as @Leks. Don't want to end up with 100 pages of rules. Although it would be funny, example:  Sir, you are in violation of article 5 , sub-section 174;A and sub-section 13;F.

[Ben 2,378 / 31,861]

I'm up for this rule, and I am okay with 3-month maximum to not share any spoilers, although I think it should be at least under one-month minimum (most people will see the movie by then). 

 

Maybe a temporary channel to discuss about a movie (Endgame can make sense for this in the case) until the cooldown for the spoiler ceases for Discord (the channel would then be deleted afterward)? I would rather want to discuss the movie with folks in the Discord who have already seen the film rather than having to go to make a group DM about it, without any accidental spoilers for anyone else.

 

I don't want to use the spoiler tag feature in the Discord, as it would make my point about the accidental spoiler - people would just click it anyway or they have it disabled in the settings.

[Guest]

just so everyone is aware. I made a suggestion that is essentially this in main discord.

On 4/28/2019 at 11:01 AM, VilhjalmrF said:

Add #spoilers channel, problem solved. If someone spoils a movie in any other channel besides that one then they should be punished. Just my suggestion though.

 

the intent behind this is to give users who just can't keep themselves from talking about a movie or tv show they just saw a place to discuss the details of the movie or tv show. People asking other users if they have seen the piece of media or liked it do not need to post here but can do so if they wish, if the conversation moves past "yeah i liked it" (or whatever else is said) and details are going to be discussed, then they should move to the #spoilers channel.

 

On 5/2/2019 at 12:49 PM, Ben said:

I'm up for this rule, and I am okay with 3-month maximum to not share any spoilers, although I think it should be at least under one-month minimum (most people will see the movie by then). 

yeah looking back on it there's no need for it to be three months for everything. A number that feels good for tv shows (at least to me) is two weeks. that should allow everyone who's invested in it to see it and the people that aren't most likely won't care after 2 weeks. Movies could be the same but if it's a larger title like endgame then maybe 3 weeks to a month.