Open Up the Forums to ALL Players

[madrebel]

40 minutes ago, Capco said:

• being properly moderated;
• members are clear on what is acceptable and not acceptable;

and here is the problem when the default setting isn't in accordance with the first amendment. this site is hosted in the US after all.

mods never agree, even on this site. over the years i've been encouraged to have a vacation idk ... less than 10 times and I enjoy pot stirring and trolling. its fun. i've had mods message me on the side saying "that was funny, but you're close to the line" if had other mods chew me out etc etc etc. I have gone HARD at ole Docdoom numerous times, killer too, and wasn't banned. fairly certain if I read now some of the trolling i did in my 20s i might wince a little ... mostly cause i'd word it much better now. I say all this to ask the question, what is 'proper' moderation?

good luck clearly defining what is and isn't acceptable if you go beyond things that are obvious like, no DOXing, no threats of real world violence, etc. you're just being subjective and you can't guarantee all the mods will enforce to the same level leaving the forum population guessing as to what is and isn't appropriate.

off my soap box now, pay walling the forums is dumb whether you moderate or not. imo.

[Capco]

15 hours ago, TEX64 said:

There is the issue. We have a duty to have a reasonable forum environment for ALL in our community. If you guys can't control yourselves, it's over and done.

Applying my previous post to the discussion between you and @madrebel, CRS does have a basic duty to monitor the forums.  But as long as you have a comprehensive terms of service (check), a good faith effort at moderation (check), and reasonable turn-around times for addressing posters' concerns (check), then you no more to fear than any other forum.  

The courts will give you significant deference due to your limited manpower to monitor and control discussions, so long as you are basically doing your best with what you have.

I've posted on dozens and dozens of forums over the years and this one is on the higher-end of administrative moderation.  I think you guys have your bases covered tbh.
 

15 hours ago, TEX64 said:

Disagreements are one thing but some of the posters in OT are just ugh. It used to be an unusual, sometimes amusing trip to go to OT. Now, it's a sad nuthouse that is well-past it's expiration date.

With respect to OT, the best thing would be to keep it behind the subscription paywall.  But the rest of these forums are far more useful as a topic-based discussion tool than Discord.  Discord is more of a ShoutBox chatroom and is only a supplement to forum discussions, not a replacement.  Discussions on the same topics are now fractured all over various parts of the forums since some folks cannot see all of the topics, and discussions on Discord are completely hodge-podge.  

 

[Capco]

16 minutes ago, madrebel said:

and here is the problem when the default setting isn't in accordance with the first amendment. this site is hosted in the US after all.

mods never agree, even on this site. over the years i've been encouraged to have a vacation idk ... less than 10 times and I enjoy pot stirring and trolling. its fun. i've had mods message me on the side saying "that was funny, but you're close to the line" if had other mods chew me out etc etc etc. I have gone HARD at ole Docdoom numerous times, killer too, and wasn't banned. fairly certain if I read now some of the trolling i did in my 20s i might wince a little ... mostly cause i'd word it much better now. I say all this to ask the question, what is 'proper' moderation?

good luck clearly defining what is and isn't acceptable if you go beyond things that are obvious like, no DOXing, no threats of real world violence, etc. you're just being subjective and you can't guarantee all the mods will enforce to the same level leaving the forum population guessing as to what is and isn't appropriate.

off my soap box now, pay walling the forums is dumb whether you moderate or not. imo.

I presume you know that the First Amendment has limits, with perhaps the most well-known example being that you cannot falsely scream "fire!" in a theater or similar venue.  That's a crime and is not protected speech.  

Similarly, defamation (e.g., libel and slander) is a valid cause of action for civil liability and is also not protected speech.  

You're looking at this as black-or-white when it's a classic grey case in law.  "Proper" moderation is subjective, but that subjectivity does not preclude an acceptable legal application to the facts.  Courts use a "reasonableness" standard to help them decide liability in subjective situations, which is why you see that word over and over in the case I cited. 

I have to run out soon so I don't have the time to explain the nuances, but for now you can take it to the bank that this a VERY well-developed legal standard and hence not the obstacle to determining liability that you are purporting it as.  

Overall though I agree with your general premise.  CRS should seriously consider opening up the forums for the sake of better discussions and game development, and the legal risk for doing so is minimal at best.  

[sorella]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

 
Overall though I agree with your general premise.  CRS should seriously consider opening up the forums for the sake of better discussions and game development, and the legal risk for doing so is minimal at best.  

[madrebel]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

I presume you know that the First Amendment has limits, with perhaps the most well-known example being that you cannot falsely scream "fire!" in a theater or similar venue.  That's a crime and is not protected speech.  

this has been debunked for ages. it is NOT a crime to do this. note, not suggesting you should although the reason the judge at the time used this as an example is no longer relevant as we don't use nitrocellulose film anymore. it was a pithy rejoinder at the time, a (very dark) analog today would be yelling "omg mass shooter" at a school. equally appalling, but not technically illegal. this passage was taken out of context from the judges original use of such to highlight a 'possible' limitation on the first amendment. i challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, Capco said:

Similarly, defamation (e.g., libel and slander) is a valid cause of action for civil liability and is also not protected speech.

uh huh, not suggesting you should allow this however litigating these is rarely easy.

 

[Capco]

6 hours ago, madrebel said:

this has been debunked for ages. it is NOT a crime to do this. note, not suggesting you should although the reason the judge at the time used this as an example is no longer relevant as we don't use nitrocellulose film anymore. it was a pithy rejoinder at the time, a (very dark) analog today would be yelling "omg mass shooter" at a school. equally appalling, but not technically illegal. this passage was taken out of context from the judges original use of such to highlight a 'possible' limitation on the first amendment. i challenge you to prove otherwise.

Sigh.  At best, you can say my statement was worded poorly.  Instead, I should have just left it as an example of unprotected speech, because:

Quote

... sometimes you could yell "fire" in a crowded theater without facing punishment.  The theater may actually be on fire.  Or you may reasonably believe that the theater is on fire.  Or you are singing in a concert, and 'fire' is one of your lyrics.  Of course, there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge.

https://reason.com/2023/10/24/how-to-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/


"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).  This is the same test still in use today by courts for evaluating government attempts to punish inflammatory speech.  

Justice Black and Justice Douglas wrote separate opinions concurring with the rest of the Court's per curiam decision in Brandenburg.  This is notable because both of them were the only First Amendment absolutists on the Court, and even they recognized that the First Amendment's protections had their limits. 

In Justice Douglas's own words from his concurrence:

Quote

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.  This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action.  See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536—537, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1346, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (Douglas, J., concurring.)  They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.  Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.

So yes, there actually are instances of speech that are not immune from prosecution, however rare they may be.  And this "fire" example is specifically cited in Brandenburg as one of those rare instances, which again is the current US case law on inflammatory speech.  

Basically, while you might have other legal defenses, you wouldn't be able to assert a First Amendment defense in the "fire" example since your speech explicitly fails the Brandenburg test.  The speech itself would become "inseparable" from the acts caused.  



PS - Nothing in the court cases I read mentioned anything about nitrocellulose film.  That definitely sounds more like an urban legend "debunking" myth you might have picked up during your past forum adventures.

Edited July 14 by Capco

[madrebel]

19 hours ago, Capco said:

PS - Nothing in the court cases I read mentioned anything about nitrocellulose film.  That definitely sounds more like an urban legend "debunking" myth you might have picked up during your past forum adventures.

no this is well known, nitrocellulose film was the type of film used when the moving pictures thing began even up till the early 'talkies' it was still in use. nitrocellulose can spontanteously combust at low temperatures, 103 degrees F. combine that with the wide public use of smoking and you get a butt load of theater fires and a public very aware of and concerned about the pobability of a fire breaking out in the theater.

hence, don't yell fire in a crowded theater (at the time) as everyone will panic due to the very well known threat of fire. a threat caused by nitrocellulose film stock.

this was used as a plot device in Tarrentino's Inglorious [censored]. Was a neat little historical nod to early cinema wrapped in the plot to kill mustachio. However by the 40s when Tarrentino's film takes place, nitrocellulose would have been on the way out. just pointing out this is the reason tarrentino used film as the fire starter.

Edited July 14 by madrebel

[Capco]

7 hours ago, madrebel said:

no this is well known, nitrocellulose film was the type of film used when the moving pictures thing began even up till the early 'talkies' it was still in use. nitrocellulose can spontanteously combust at low temperatures, 103 degrees F. combine that with the wide public use of smoking and you get a butt load of theater fires and a public very aware of and concerned about the pobability of a fire breaking out in the theater.

hence, don't yell fire in a crowded theater (at the time) as everyone will panic due to the very well known threat of fire. a threat caused by nitrocellulose film stock.

this was used as a plot device in Tarrentino's Inglorious [censored]. Was a neat little historical nod to early cinema wrapped in the plot to kill mustachio. However by the 40s when Tarrentino's film takes place, nitrocellulose would have been on the way out. just pointing out this is the reason tarrentino used film as the fire starter.

It has nothing to do with an actual presence of a fire. 

It has everything to do with people getting trampled to death due to someone falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded area.  

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, panics caused by false shouts of "fire" in crowded theaters and other venues were not uncommon.  Most notably, the Canonsburg Opera House disaster of 1911 led to 26 deaths, and the 1913 Italian Hall disaster saw 73 people die in the crush that ensued from a false alarm in a crowded banquet hall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonsburg_Opera_House_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster

Find me an actual court case that cites nitrocellulose film as the principal reason for this hallmark example that is still being taught in law school, and I'll believe that more than a Tarentino reference.  I'm providing legitimate sources (including binding court cases), and you're just saying whatever.

It's almost as if you read nothing else that I posted.  

[madrebel]

you're completely missing the point now, perhaps others can draw with crayon for you ... i never once claimed the 'reason' for theaters fires had anything to do with court cases. was merely trying to point out the why that lead to the well known potential hazards one might face going to the theater in the early 1900s.

[sorella]

Crayons, nitrocellulose and Brandenburg v. Ohio. This is now officially an Off-Topic topic. "FIRE!"

[tibb]

I have played since launch and pop back in for a month or two and subscribe to support the game which I have enjoyed since the running on water, pool table top terrain and clown car run days. (Go Canada Corp.) It would be fun to see the forums in the months when I'm not subscribed. However, moderation is hard when a ban just means a new free account. Legal liability aside you want forums to be somewhere that isn't a pustulant hell hole. I really believe free to play/steam saved the game as it gave us more people to shoot, but it led to a bit of a divided community that lost some of the old school feel but as I said kept us playing. If the price of that is that you need to subscribe for the forums it falls under the category of whatever for me.