Spoiler Infraction Policy - Keep It or Loose It?

[Locke]

Resurrecting this again. This needs to get sorted out real soon. With LA month around the corner and E3 in one month, we need something concrete to base our actions on. I'm just going to quote the list of rules, but some of them I think are slightly outdated by now and have some typos, so go ahead and modify them or write new ones. Just reiterating what I quoted, we should try to keep debates to a minimum and focus on drafting and voting on the rule.

Can't let this die again. So far we have 3 or 4 variations. Keeping true to Justin's wishes, let's try voting on these and offering modifications more than debating. I do think the debating is important, but it does seem to not be getting anywhere. Maybe we can do more of that if we have an obvious split in the votes.

Tentative Rule 1.a
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations. Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use one of the following: spoiler tags to hide certain content, or use a spoiler prefix in the thread title. This rule is effected for the following boards: Skyward Sword, [Ocarina of Time,] World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be effected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

Tentative Rule 1.b
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler (for any Zelda game) in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

Tentative Rule 2.a
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations. Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use one of the following: spoiler tags to hide certain content, or use a spoiler prefix in the thread title. This rule is effected for the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be effected. This rule will only be enforced for all Zelda games.

Tentative Rule 2.b
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for all Zelda games.


My vote's for 1.b, since I think it adds some more clarity over 1.a and makes a small compromise with those who don't want older games spoiled, but I think 2.a/2.b is a little too extreme and more users would be annoyed than grateful.

 

[Baysiderulez]

I agree with Locke on 1.b I'd be happy with either of the tentative 1 rules however.

 

[DuckNoises]

I'll elude to some of the things that happened yesterday. One infraction and one warning were handed out in the Theory Section, despite the rule stating that no spoiler tags are required in the Theory Section. These were spoilers from LA, which is the game that we should be the most wary about in terms of spoilers, particularly because LA month is coming up. The special thing about LA spoilers is the fact that it has a secret ending, that many people who have beaten the game have still not achieved. This means that people can go into the Theory Section and discuss LA, but may have not seen the secret ending. Then, another member may make reference to the secret ending, potentially spoiling that ending for the people who have not gotten both endings. In order for members to discuss LA in the theory section and refer to the secret ending, the spoiler rule will have to be modified for special cases, such as those that cropped up yesterday. The infractions were handed out on a very vague rule, and were reversed because the rule was not clear. For special cases like these, we should either modify the rule to accommodate special cases, or potentially consider removing the infraction altogether.

If we propose to make a special sub-rule for LA in the theory section, it might read something like this:

Theory Section Sub-Rule A
"The theory section is generally exempt from spoiler tags, with a few exceptions. Be cautious of divulging spoilers pertaining to Link's Awakening, and use spoiler tags if necessary. One case where spoiler tags are necessary in the theory section is when a player makes reference to the secret ending of Link's Awakening (the one unlocked by beating the game without dying). If this ending is being referred to, surround your references and parts of your discussion of the secret ending with spoiler tags and place a heading above the spoiler tags that reads something along the lines of "Warning: LA Secret Ending Spoilers." The player will not receive an infraction unless there are many repeat offenses.
Note: Moderators reserve the right to edit the post in question by placing a spoiler tag around the text where the moderator deems it necessary. If such action is necessary, the author of the post will be notified via PM."

This one is just more of a general, special case rule.
Theory Section Sub-Rule B
"In the event of any special cases involving spoilers that arise that are ambiguous or do not have a rule that properly determines the appropriate action, moderators reserve the right to edit the post in question by placing a spoiler tag around the text where the moderator deems it necessary. If such action is necessary, the author of the post will be notified via PM. In the event of a special, non-LA related case, no infraction will be warranted."

Those are some of the things that I think should be included as a result of yesterday's discussion.

 

[Nicole]

Personally, DuckNoises, I disagree with a sub-rule for Link's Awakening. I have not played LA myself, and having a "read at your own risk" rule for the overall theory section is fine by me. I've reiterated this many times, but I do not want a spoiler rule for the theory section. I feel it is too troublesome to compose or read a theory post with numerous spoiler tags in it. In my opinion, a simple Spoiler tag in the title will suffice, although I'd have to say almost all Theory posts will include spoilers of some sort, anyway.

However, one thing I want to know: If we do implement a Spoiler rule for the Theory section, would the "Spoilers!" tag in the title be enough? Or would every poster have to include Spoiler tags in every post that includes spoilers? Again, I feel it is very annoying to sort through numerous spoiler tags in the Theory section. Just my personal opinion, but I like the idea of keeping the "read at your own risk" rule for Theory. Or perhaps just use the overall Spoiler title.

I think it is a good idea to make a poll right now, and to have the members decide if they want Spoiler tags for the Theory section. That way, we can have input from everybody without having a lot of detailed analysis. Basically, the poll could be like this: "Spoiler Tags in Zelda Theory?" Answers: "Yes" or "No." I believe that would be a simple and effective way to garner some input from other members.

 

[Locke]

However, one thing I want to know: If we do implement a Spoiler rule for the Theory section, would the "Spoilers!" tag in the title be enough? Or would every poster have to include Spoiler tags in every post that includes spoilers?

I think we have all (even DuckNoises) agreed that a Spoilers! prefix on a thread removes any responsibility of using spoiler tags within the posts, even outside of the Theory section.

I think it is a good idea to make a poll right now, and to have the members decide if they want Spoiler tags for the Theory section. That way, we can have input from everybody without having a lot of detailed analysis. Basically, the poll could be like this: "Spoiler Tags in Zelda Theory?" Answers: "Yes" or "No." I believe that would be a simple and effective way to garner some input from other members.

Perhaps we should decide on a definite general rule before deciding on how much of it to enforce in the Theory section.

I'll update the tentative rules here so we can continue voting on them.

(The general trend seems to be people preferring the '.b' rules over the '.a' rules, so I'll eliminate the '.a' ones to make this simpler.)
Tentative Rule 1.b
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler (for any Zelda game) in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.
[we can debate which games to include later. the point of this rule is to limit enforcement to specific games.]
[it may need to be reworded to avoid confusion of whether the spoilers in thread title part applies to all games or just the ones listed at the bottom]

Tentative Rule 2.b
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will be enforced for all Zelda games.

So far there are two votes for 1.b (Jo and myself) and several pushes toward a modified 1.b. If you have any suggestions for modifying 1.b, please post it, as tentative rule 1.c; or if you have a more drastic change, go ahead and add a tentative rule 3.a.

 

[Djinn]

First and foremost, I would like it to be recognized that a there absolutely must be a posted observable rule first before any infractions and warnings are sent out. Therefore there will not be any confusion as to why someone received any punishment for what they can very clearly see was absolutely not against any rules within the Rules link above.

A rule must be placed in print and readable by all members then punishment given based upon the rule that is posted. And not based on what we all personally argue that we think might be best within this thread (which is hidden to a large majority of the forum BTW, they would not know what we agreed upon at all) If any special exceptions is made to any of the rules, then place it within the Rules above so that members can read them themselves and know that there are exceptions.

This thread is obviously confusing enough that is creates these issues for members, so that now we say we have an agreed upon rule. But everyone here seems to have a completely different idea of which choice the whole forum has agreed upon. From what I gather everyone has picked one of the choices for themselves and has assumed that everyone else agrees with them on some level. Clearly that is not the case since this thread was left in limbo a few months ago with no final absolute definition decided and announced By Justin or Mases.

Excessive rules on top of rules as well as infractions given based on personal assumption of what they believe they should be will only result in members having no idea what is and is not allowed. This will cause them to be completely reluctant to post anything in the section whatsoever because there are too many different points of view regarding the policy. And in an effort to not attract any more unwanted or misunderstood discipline since one mod might see it as a violation while another would not. Everyone on the forum needs to be on the exact same page.

 

[Kybyrian]

Spoilers are the second-worst thing to happen to this forum since the reputation problem imo. If somebody didn't get an urge to add a new feature we wouldn't even be debating this and everybody would just go, "fffuuu" and move on when they had something spoiled.

What's done is done, though, and I believe tentative rule 1.b is the best choice.

 

[Meego]

I think even though people have said that spoilers for old games are un-necessary, I still think there should perhaps be some form of warning that there could be spoilers for people who have not played the games and do not want to see what the plot, storyline or anything else is. It's just an idea, but I would rather play the game and not have it spoiled.

But yeah, it is a tricky issue, really. I think new members seem rather un-informed of the forum rules, how the reputation system works and things like that, really. So I think we need to make sure, somehow, that new members can definitely see and be aware of the rules regarding spoilers. Otherwise is does seem a bit of a wasted effort of people don't see the rules then proceed without knowing. Of course this may not be out fault, I just think they should be completely aware of the rules.

I agree with the two rules posted, but I think 1b seems the best fitting. So...

Vote: 1.b

 

[Baysiderulez]

Spoilers are the second-worst thing to happen to this forum since the reputation problem imo. If somebody didn't get an urge to add a new feature we wouldn't even be debating this and everybody would just go, "fffuuu" and move on when they had something spoiled.

What's done is done, though, and I believe tentative rule 1.b is the best choice.

Exactly... spoiler tags were added and meant to be a common curtesy for those who wished to use them, not to give mods an excuse to infract/warn people. We're a Zelda forum, expect people to talk about stuff from zelda... stuff you may be familiar with and stuff you may not be so familiar with. Anything that deters people from posting is bad for a healthy forum.

 

[basement24]

I didn't want to respond because I felt that I would get myself into one of my classic "basement24 is a crotchety jerk" moments, but I couldn't stay away. SPOILERS! I'm about to get crotchety!

I had Twilight Princess almost completely spoiled for me before I laid hands on it because I came to online Zelda forums. Most of these posts were in TP forums, and not in subject headers. They were just posted in the bodies of their messages. Yes, there were some that might've been deemed a bit inappropriate for their location, but in the end, I can only blame myself for having the game ruined. Why? Because I chose to come online to a forum that was talking about the newest of the Zelda games. It was my own damn fault. I was about to play this game and before I did I read online about it. I clicked on a forum called "Twilight Princess" and for some reason was disappointed to have elements ruined.

I still haven't played the Oracle games, and yet I pretty much know all about them because of ZD's forums. I find out things accidently, and I say "well damn, I should have played it earlier". The reasoning that spoiler tags should be in place to protect people who haven't had a chance to play a game yet isn't good enough for me, because I've had 10 years to play the Oracle games and I haven't. Yes, they're coming to the VC, so they will be new again to some including myself, but still they have been out there for 10 long years now. I've seen them at garage sales for a couple of bucks, I've seen them in used game stores and I've seen emulators of them. They're out there. There's no excuse, I just haven't played them.

When I read these new spoiler rules to choose from, I pictured a forum where every subject header has SPOILERS! in front of it, and everyone's individual posts you have to click on to reveal what they typed. Spoilers are too broad a term to give infractions about, even with the generalization here. Yes, there's givens like the secret reveal ending of the game in a subject header, but to not be able to just say "I liked the sword and shield you take from Rusl's house the best" without spoiler tags seems foolish. It may not seem like a big spoiler, but it falls under a couple of the spoiler rules being proposed here. (Item location, new characters, storyline details.) I know that maybe no infraction would be given for this because it seems minor, but then to not give it for something like this and have to because someone complains about some other equal-level spoiler just isn't right. You won't be able to pick and choose moderation battles if the rules are out there to follow. Someone complains about A, then B, C and D have to be punished as well even if no one complained just because it falls under the rules.

If anything, I would think that spoilers should be applied to mentioning something OUTSIDE of the forum they're intended to be in rather than inside. For instance, getting something spoiled in the OoT forum about OoT only makes sense. You're there to talk about OoT. People who are currently playing OoT, or are waiting for the 3Ds verison just might want to stay away from that subforum all together until they feel they are at a point where they are ready to accept seeing spoilers. Now, if one were to spoil OoT in the Classic Zelda forum, or even a non Zelda forum like the Community one ("Hi, my name is Saria because she's my favourite Sage", for instance), then that would be annoying. You're not necessarily expecting to go somewhere else and see a spoiler for something that's kind of off topic (or even if it's brought around to be on topic).

I'm reminded of TheForce.net's forums during the time that the Star Wars prequels were coming out. They had two forums for each movie - A No Spoilers forum, and a Spoilers forum. The Spoilers forum was for the people who just didn't care. They wanted to know every little tidbit of info or rumours and wanted to disect them. Whhen the movies came out, they could take full-tilt about deaths or endings or anything they wanted because it was the spoilers forum. The No Spoilers forum were able to guess and theorize before the movies came out, and afterwards it was a safe place for people who hadn't seen the movie yet to further discuss seeing it soon. The only thing here is that a Last Post preview window was disabled, otherwise spoiler headers on the spoiler forum would be visible. I don't know if this is something that could help ease this infraction idea here, but I thought I'd throw it on the table. After a suitable amount of time, I the two separate forums were dropped in favour of one. The activity level in the No Spoilers vs the Spoilers showed it was a safe time to move on from protection. At that point, you had to protect yourself from anythign you didn't want to know about the movies, which I think is only fair.

In general, they should stay out of subject lines, for sure, but that's always been a rule of sorts. It's just common courtesy. I think what's been said in the last 4 posts or so above mine holds true to how I feel. To have infractions given based on broad terms without definition of how deep information has to get before being deemed a spoiler will make people frightened to post for fear of infractions.

Personally, I'm frightened already.

 

[athenian200]

Well, I think you can guess my opinion. I've come to resent this forum because of this policy. It's part of why I don't post here much anymore. I don't appreciate being asked to censor myself on the topic of Zelda, on a Zelda forum. I feel like it inhibits my ability to discuss a topic, having to think about whether what I'm saying could be considered a "Spoiler" or not. I don't even like the idea of "spoilers," I don't even think that way. I have never cared about finding out information about a game beforehand, and I've always thought people who think that way are weird.

I don't need a Zelda forum where I can't discuss Zelda freely. I don't think anyone does.

I'm especially upset about this rule applying to Ocarina of Time because of the new re-release, Before, it mostly applied to games I wouldn't talk about much anyway... now it applies to the one I talk about all the time. It really upsets me, and I resent everyone who is in favor it. I should be able to discuss the old OoT freely, and only add tags if talking about the OoT on the 3DS.

This is the most absurd idea I've ever heard of, and I cannot understand the mindset of those who support it. It's repugnant to me. And I am tired of it.

I will obey the rule when I do make a Zelda post, but I will mostly avoid making Zelda-related posts as a result of this rule. I had to go back and add those ugly tags to a post I made just before this one, because I had forgotten about the rule, and didn't think it would be applied to OoT. It's extremely frustrating and counter-intuitive.

 

[Djinn]

In general, they should stay out of subject lines, for sure, but that's always been a rule of sorts. It's just common courtesy. I think what's been said in the last 4 posts or so above mine holds true to how I feel. To have infractions given based on broad terms without definition of how deep information has to get before being deemed a spoiler will make people frightened to post for fear of infractions.

Personally, I'm frightened already.

That sums up roughly how I feel on the subject. Frankly this has caused me the very strongly second guess my ever wishing to take part in a discussion in the Theory section ever again since this has happened twice now. It proves that it absolutely will happen again and to avoid any further future discipline the only answer is to not post at all. Which is based solely around the concept of giving a courtesy to a possible unknown number of new members that may or may not have played a game but will still for unknown reasons enter a thread on the subject and just maybe not at all like what they see. Their dislike of the spoilers is also up for debate, not everyone is disgusted by them. For people who have been here longer that have fallen into inactivity citing complaints of dupe threads and newbies reposting the same old discussions we have all seen to many times in the past, posting in any other discussions outside of the usual Mafia games or "What's your favorite item?" threads have a very high chance of be infracted.

Even while the current rule say that Theory is acceptable, it appears that it is not.

This rule will be monitored with Twilight Princess and newer games and heavily monitored with Skyward Sword, as it will be brand new later this year. The boards that will not applicable to this rules are Game Help and Zelda Theory.

There do not appear to be any exceptions listed for the Theory forum at all, only that in bold we are told Theory is acceptable.

I hate spoiler rules as I have always considered them a simple courtesy for a very tiny portion of the population. Obviously no one is going to post any major spoiler information in a thread title and I would not blatantly go out of my way to ruin a very recent game for anyone. And just why everyone else throughout the entire population must be eternally weary of the possibility of spilling some of the information on a game that is completely spilled within the first paragraph of a wikipedia article or be threatened by punishment is hard for me to fully comprehend. Now there are Zelda fans on a Zelda board that are afraid to talk about Zelda because they might be punished for it. But as the current spoiler rules go we can spill all the info on Halo or Assassin's Cred all we wish. Just not Zelda.

I cannot be the only one that sees the ridiculousness in that.

 

[Kybyrian]

This. Entire. Post.

The whole spoiler thing is just ridiculous... as I already said. If you don't want things spoiled - bet you never guessed it - you shouldn't look up topics about it!

I completely understand enforcing spoilers outside of the sections for the game. People should expect spoilers inside of the section for a game... but they shouldn't have to deal with OoT spoilers in the Modern Zelda section. If we need to enforce spoilers at all, we need to do it for games that are mentioned outside of their designated sections. When Skyward Sword is released, people should know better than to open every single topic that concerns Skyward Sword and start reading everything. Half the people will just click the spoiler button anyway... I say a PM is good enough for all types of spoilers. I don't even think we need to send out PMs for spoilers of games that are in their section... but I say mods can be free to use their judgment in a section such as theory. Infractions are the wrong way to go about something like this, though.

 

[DuckNoises]

Here's a bit of discussion that came up recently. Apparently people are being deterred from posting because of an infraction that makes them feel ashamed for having done something. I didn't create the rule, but I enforced it (with my own interpretation of it, which brought on controversy). From what I'm told, a lot of the problem appears to be with the infraction itself, in that it stays a constant reminder that you have done something immoral or wrong.

This is the proposal that I have come up with:

The Spoiler Courtesy Policy:
The best option that has come to mind so far is to eliminate the infraction, and no longer call it a "rule." It's better to just treat using spoiler tags as a common courtesy, and it is expected that everyone will not spoil a game for others. Seeing as the policy is courtesy, the user will never receive an infraction for failing to surround a post with spoiler tags. The use of spoiler tags is still strongly encouraged, but failure to utilize them will result in, at most, a PM from a moderator asking the user to be wary of posting off-topic or spontaneous spoilers.

It is a very short and simple solution to the issue, but seeing as so many people are put off by the idea of being punished, others have brought it my attention that they would rather merely be informed that their posts may contain spoiler information.

 

[Kybyrian]

I agree... very much agree.