• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Tentative Rule Vote

Which Rule Would You Like?

  • Tentative A

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tentative B

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No Rule

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
I've been reading some of the newer post in the tentative rules about spoilers. That being said there has been two tentative rules that seem to stick out. I fear that if I do a conversational vote, that it will go on and on for a long time. My school year is about to end so my free time will start to increase. Anyways the two rules up for vote.

Tentative Rule 3.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 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 spoiler tags to hide said content that relates to a game other than the topic of the thread, or includes a spoiler in a thread title. This rule does not apply to the Zelda Theory section, where references to other games is expected and encouraged in the spirit of theorizing. First and minor offenses will be met by a PM from a moderator reminding the user of this rule. Repeat offenses may result in a warning, and a full infraction will only be given out in very rare and extreme cases.

Tentative Rule 3.b
Failure to warn about Spoilers - No Infraction
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). This isn't a strict rule and will not be punished as such. Users may be reminded via PM to be mindful of the common courtesy of hiding off-topic or spontaneous spoilers. Moderators reserve the right to edit posts to include spoiler tags at their discretion and issue at most a PM asking the user to be more cautious in the future.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
I voted for A, but it still needs a little work. The primary disagreement on the spoiler issue is which games are considered spoilers, not how do deal with violations (dealing with them with the A method sounds ideal though).

The main argument we're dealing with is actually whether we should not have the rule at all, only have spoiler rules applicable for recent games, or for all games. Problem is, I'm not convinced the majority of the normal members actually want spoiler rules in place. This was first brought up by moderators, not forumgoers, and this context needs to be remembered. We don't want to implement a rule just because the mods want it when it's the kind of thing meant to protect the actual users. I've seen a number of people complain about it, so I think if we're going to do anything extreme like apply the rule to older games, we NEED to take a public vote.

Rule A deals with some reasonable policies to help people avoid spoilers THEMSELVES (which they should be doing; internet forums generally = spoilers), but I still think it's kind of unreasonable when you factor in older games with really common knowledge stories. Do you expect people to not talk about LA being a dream, or Sheik or Tetra being Zelda, or that you go to the future or the Dark World in OoT and ALttP respectively? These are all just as much of spoilers as anything else, yet just about everyone knows them and is even EXPECTED to know them to actually discuss many topics. Having to use a spoiler tag for every single one is an unnecessary pain considering that talking about this stuff is what this forum is for.

Of course, you can allow common knowledge stuff as exceptions to the rule, but then what? Do you compile a list of exceptions? That won't work. The only logical solution is to apply the rule to recent games. TP, PH and ST this would be applicable with, and SS as soon as it comes out. It's a basic practice anywhere you go to consider something that is sufficiently old "common knowledge". Darth Vader is Luke's father, for example. This applies to classical writings, plays, and old entertainment. Why wouldn't it apply to this, especially since we're on a forum for discussing that entertainment in-depth?
 

Nicole

luke is my wife
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Location
NJ
Spoilers ahead!

I voted for Rule A as well. Looks like it's just me and Axle on that one. It seems like most people don't want an infraction at all. However, I fear this will allow for people to freely post spoilers in unrelated areas. I agree that a spoiler policy that has something to do with the topic on hand is unecessary, but I wouldn't want someone to be reading through a thread about "Did you like Midna?" in Modern Zelda and read "Zomg no!! The KoRL is totes better b cuz he's really a person!!1!!1!!" That in itself is unfair, although it does play into the "read at your own risk" factor.

Axle the Beast said:
Of course, you can allow common knowledge stuff as exceptions to the rule, but then what? Do you compile a list of exceptions? That won't work. The only logical solution is to apply the rule to recent games. TP, PH and ST this would be applicable with, and SS as soon as it comes out. It's a basic practice anywhere you go to consider something that is sufficiently old "common knowledge". Darth Vader is Luke's father, for example. This applies to classical writings, plays, and old entertainment. Why wouldn't it apply to this, especially since we're on a forum for discussing that entertainment in-depth?

Common knowledge spoilers are alright as long as they pertain to the topic at hand. Most people know that the KoRL is really a person. However, when discussing Midna, there is no reason to write, "Zomg no!! The KoRL is totes better b cuz he's really a person!!1!!1!!" outside of Spoiler Tags.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Common knowledge spoilers are alright as long as they pertain to the topic at hand. Most people know that the KoRL is really a person. However, when discussing Midna, there is no reason to write, "Zomg no!! The KoRL is totes better b cuz he's really a person!!1!!1!!" outside of Spoiler Tags.
If it's a common knowledge spoiler, then there is no reason whatever why it should be in spoiler tags, because by definition, it's common knowledge. If people do not know it, then they are the exception rather than the rule. It's basically impossible to craft the rules to properly care for exceptions like that without pissing off the majority of users.

I agree with enforcing the rules for pretty much all games on thread titles. That makes sense. But once the thread title indicates the game, if you haven't played it, then you have no business asking people to not spoil it in a thread about it; don't read the thread.

Now let's take your example of someone saying "Zomg no!! The KoRL is totes better b cuz he's really a person!!1!!1!!". Are you saying that if someone who hasn't played The Wind Waker reads that post and doesn't stop as soon as they see "King or Red Lions", or "KoRL" or really the name of any character they're infamiliar with, that they shouldn't just stop reading? Even if older games are not enforced at all, common sense would allow pretty much anyone to avoid spoilers.

I also guess I don't understand what you're saying, because you're saying common knowledge spoilers are fine when they relate to the topic at hand. Well, if they relate to the topic at hand, then the spoilers are marked properly and thus it doesn't matter if they're common knowledge or not, they're still allowed.

The idea behind common knowledge games is simply that we don't worry about them at all, aside form let's say, thread titles. With that in place, we don't worry about them since it will rarely be an issue for anyone, and someone still has the means to either not read a thread or, in most cases, stop reading threads once certain games or names are referenced. Besides, in a topic about helpers in Zelda, shouldn't you expect comments about helpers from games you haven't played? Common sense STILL applies.


(EDIT)
After thinking about it more, I asked Justin to change my vote over to No Rule. I think aside from thread titles, which to my knowledge have never really been a major issue and can be handled separately, there's still no reason to have a rule at all since common sense can help you avoid threads or even specific posts. I've done it myself, and/or chosen not to do it myself, so I know it's 100% possible.

In short, there's no reason to have a rule on something people can and probably should handle on their own.

If y'all do decide on having one, I still don't want it to extend past recent games for all the reasons I've stated.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Now let's take your example of someone saying "Zomg no!! The KoRL is totes better b cuz he's really a person!!1!!1!!". Are you saying that if someone who hasn't played The Wind Waker reads that post and doesn't stop as soon as they see "King or Red Lions", or "KoRL" or really the name of any character they're infamiliar with, that they shouldn't just stop reading? Even if older games are not enforced at all, common sense would allow pretty much anyone to avoid spoilers.
If that sentence were phrased any differently (i.e. "Things that are real people like the King of Red Lions are more interesting"), then it would be impossible to know when to stop. There's no guarantee that people are going to be given adequate warning of off-topic spoilers just from context. In response to a statement further down in your post, if someone has not played WW, then (s)he would not know if there was a helper in it. So should that thread be avoided by everyone who hasn't played every single game?


It was mentioned in the Skype chat -- and I think in the other thread a long time ago -- that if we do end up with "no rule" or "3.b" and people aren't paying attention to moderators' PMs, they could receive an infraction for something else like posting off-topic (if it's an off-topic spoiler) or trolling (if they're intentionally repeating the behavior).

Justin, do you think we should keep the debate over which games to apply it to in the other thread, or just continue it here?
 

David

But you called me here...
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
I voted for A. I think that it is the better of the two. However, I feel that it needs the changes that Axle has discussed.
 

Nicole

luke is my wife
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Location
NJ
Locke said:
Justin, do you think we should keep the debate over which games to apply it to in the other thread, or just continue it here?

Imma just continue it here.

My feelings on what games it should apply: All games, or no games. Honestly, you shouldn't just say "it applies to Spirit Tracks and upcoming Skyward Sword." There are a myriad of spoilers from other games, as well. Link's Awakening is chock full of them, as is Ocarina of Time, and The Wind Waker.

Locke said:
It was mentioned in the Skype chat -- and I think in the other thread a long time ago -- that if we do end up with "no rule" or "3.b" and people aren't paying attention to moderators' PMs, they could receive an infraction for something else like posting off-topic (if it's an off-topic spoiler) or trolling (if they're intentionally repeating the behavior).

This works fine as well. As long as it does not go unpunished, I do not have a problem with this idea.

My real opinion on Spoilers is that I really have no opinion. I care not if a game is spoiled for me. I haven't even gotten to the Moon in Majora's Mask, yet I could have an in-depth debate about what happens in the final fight. I've already spoiled it for myself, and I don't have a problem with spoilers. However, I would like some sort of guideline for others, just as a courtesy.
 

Djinn

and Tonic
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Location
The Flying Mobile Opression fortress
The very reason why I do not believe there should even be a rule or if there is one the punishment should not be anything significant, is simply because no two people here can agree on exactly what a spoiler is. And even when the forum has a definition in print, it is still very heavily debated and argues to the point where the admins will quickly want to wash their hands of the situation and intact a zero tolerance policy where spoiler tags are everywhere and reading any thread is too much of a chore to get through spoiler button after spoiler button. And all are afraid to post in fear of incurring infractions. Or there is no official policy which creates a reaction in all the anti spoiler crowd that wish to not have anything known until they themselves play it and might be afraid of having a game ruined for them at any second they are on the forum by clicking on any and all thread titles.

So because we are having far too much difficulty agreeing on what exactly a spoiler is, then too many people will be punished due to the misunderstanding. I would hate to see many infractions passed out because no one agrees on what a spoiler is.

As long as the definition of spoiler is still debated I heavily doubt people will be capable of agreeing on a single rule. Each tentative rule given above and in the other thread has a different definition. We need to hammer out the exact definition first then figure out a method of policing that definition.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
If that sentence were phrased any differently (i.e. "Things that are real people like the King of Red Lions are more interesting"), then it would be impossible to know when to stop. There's no guarantee that people are going to be given adequate warning of off-topic spoilers just from context. In response to a statement further down in your post, if someone has not played WW, then (s)he would not know if there was a helper in it. So should that thread be avoided by everyone who hasn't played every single game?
Are you seriously suggesting someone would go into a Zelda Helpers thread and not assume there would be helpers from games they have not played? How many games in the series after Adventure of Link can you name that do not have helpers? It's a basic, obvious thing. So someone can reasonably assume that if they have not played all the games in the series, then in such a thread people would discuss games they have not played. Again, this is basic logic. This applies to ANY THREAD that discusses series-wide concepts. For the most part, it's easy to figure out which threads are going to contain spoilers. There are going to be exceptions of course, but it's foolish to enforce a rule for everyone that only prevents a small problem.


My feelings on what games it should apply: All games, or no games. Honestly, you shouldn't just say "it applies to Spirit Tracks and upcoming Skyward Sword." There are a myriad of spoilers from other games, as well. Link's Awakening is chock full of them, as is Ocarina of Time, and The Wind Waker.
Then you don't agree with the idea of common knowledge games? See, the problem is, yes, there are spoilers for other games. But they've come and gone. A long time ago, for many of them. It's not at all the same enforcing spoiler rules for both old and new games. Old games are just that, old. Their "time" has already happened, and the period where someone would avoid learning about the game so they can play it is, for the most part, gone. New games have just come out. That period is still there.

I understand that many people have not played them yet. But as I've said already, for the most part it only requires basic logic to avoid spoilers by yourself. The few times you cannot are rare exceptions, and enforcing a broad rule for it is far too big an action for a small problem; you can't and will never be able to please everyone. Which brings me to this...


My real opinion on Spoilers is that I really have no opinion. I care not if a game is spoiled for me. I haven't even gotten to the Moon in Majora's Mask, yet I could have an in-depth debate about what happens in the final fight. I've already spoiled it for myself, and I don't have a problem with spoilers. However, I would like some sort of guideline for others, just as a courtesy.
I really am not trying to be rude with this, but it really seems to me that this entire issue and controversy has been brought up entirely by the moderating team. Particularly by members of the moderating team and now Knights and Shoutbox Users who don't have much of anything to gain from a spoiler rule. So this is all for the "good of the other members". But I've never heard anyone complain about spoilers at all until this debate was started by a moderator. And to my knowledge not too many have complained about spoilers while others have complained about spoiler rules.

So it seems like this entire debate was started to find the solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, since it was started by a moderator giving a member and infraction for spoilers when there wasn't any spoiler policy. The members didn't care about the spoilers. It was a moderator.

Djinn also raises a point I've been trying to stress in a different way. Actually enforcing spoiler policies isn't as simple as it's been made out to be. It's already created problems, even with the straightforward rule we already had written that didn't have any loopholes. It's not wise to expand an already problematic rule to restrict more games.
 

basement24

There's a Bazooka in TP!
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Location
Ontario, Canada
I voted for "No Rule" if only because the term spoiler is just too hard to define. One may assume it's only the most shocking of secret plot points while others figure saying what's inside the first cave in the original LoZ is a spoiler. It can't be measured as it's different from person to person. It's not as cut and dry as if a person's swearing in their posts.

Given the age gap between Zelda fans, I think it's safe to assume that no one game can be ruled to be more free of spoilers than others as there's always new fans entering the fray. I've talked to people on this board who've only played Ocarina of Time. Others have played them all. I've been playing Zelda games since the first one was released, and yet I've only played just over half of them. To each person the rules change, and to cover every single possible spoiler is restricting the flow of conversation.

I think it's just best that people govern themselves in this matter. If they are that sensitive about spoilers, they shouldn't come to an online forum about the games they don't want spoiled until they play through them. I know it sounds harsh, but I think it's better to deal with malicious spoilers (Total game ruining in the subject line for instance) and leave the others alone. I know malicious ones still apply to a the sliding spoiler scale of a person to person basis, but I would think they are more obvious as they are handled more like an attack or spam post made in order to anger and annoy other members.
 

DuckNoises

Gone (Wind) Fishin'
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
Montreal, QC, Canada
Apparently there has been a little bit of confusion about 3b. When we were discussing posting 3b, I meant it to be sort of a reminder to users. I don't want it being enforced, really. The extent of the enforcement for 3b was just to send a PM to a user if they are posting spoilers that are unnecessary or may seem a little off-topic. There are no supplementary infractions of any kind. It's more of a preventative measure than anything else; more of an encouragement to users to be careful about posting spoilers, if they are going to. It isn't meant to be any kind of hindrance to reduce the number of spoilers posted or to discourage people from posting --it's just meant as a policy to notify users that we are trying to minimize spoilers, and that the users can help with minimizing them, if they so choose. Choosing to help would be the ideal solution, but not doing so won't result in any kind of punishment. Helping out is just good measure, and I feel that encouraging good measure in users is a positive thing that can help remedy the situation without causing further controversy.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Location
Cali For Nuh
That's exactly why I voted for it ducky :)

In my eyes... its more of a rule on how Moderators are supposed to treat people who post spoilers, rather then what members are supposed to do with spoilers. Its more of a policy then a punishment. So that everyone is on the same page. That's why I voted for 3b rather then no rule.
 

Y2K3

Lushier than Mercy!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Location
Newfoundland, Canada
I voted for No Rule, however I would be fine with 3.b. Like others have said, not everyone has the same definition of a spoiler. Plus, I'm sure some people, like myself dont' care about spoilers, making it difficult to know what others may call an obvious one.
An example of differences in opinion can be seen in this topic alone. SoL said that there can be spoilers in any game, but I feel if the game is old enough, then using spoilers are just silly. Unless told otherwise, I would just go and assume that people have played games like OoT, so I wouldn't bother to put it in spoilers.
 

Jedizora

:right:
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
I voted no rule, as I didn't think that anything is warrented. This is a fourm, and its enter at your own risk. If I had to choose, I would pick rule B.
 

Mr.Verto

爆発物マネージャ
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Location
Not in the SB ;-;
I pretty much agree with Axle. No Rule.

Why? Well this is a ZELDA site, so if you joined here, is becasue you have knowledge of Zelda. And now again, we might know every game, and every now and then we might find something about the game we didnt know. But is it a big deal? Probably not, probably yes. But now again ZD has the infinte solution already. Yes, when making a thread you can add the prefix SPOILER or any game. So instead of making it a rule, making it known to new users to read this "part" of the thread title to evade this situation, and MAKE it mandatory that users to add a prefix. If its not a specifc game, well then General Zelda. So...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom