Community Notification Discussion!
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2007-10-05 16:59 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm here for an argument
Sums up this discussion rather nicely, I think. 
[/ QUOTE ]
The short answer to your humorous post is "no, it isn't".
The problem is that the weight of self & mod censorship falls entirely on negative responders to a post because the only time some one complains is when their idea receives disagreement, not agreement.
I read the entire thread that JRanger was in that resulted in his ban. He gave more than just "no" and "/unsigned" as answers. But it didn't matter to the person(s) that reported him and others to the mod. Neither did it matter that there were some that gave "/signed" as their sole response.
It came down to bad feelings, over-use of the notification button, and the extra time that mods & reps had to spend responding about him.
[/ QUOTE ]
What the mods are saying is "let your sister use your stuff! when you stop her, she complains and we dont want to hear it! We dont care whet she does as long as we dont get bothered!"
If we let the carebears have full control of all forums they wont complain and the mods can get to doing what they wanted without bothersome moderation duties.
Just agree..they wont complain if you just go along with whatever idiot idea they come up with.
Sometimes you just have to say no. Many of the people with a problem with a negative respose dont want reasoning, they want absolute agreement.
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
Yes; having recently transferred my main Villain to Virtue (in an effort to improve my ability to team with the folks I'm on a Global with - none of them had high level ANYthing on Infinity, where my MM was made) ... I've been lurking the Virtue boards to see if I wanted to start yammering at you lot.
And I watched, unhappily, as those threads were ruthlessly stomped-upon. 8(
[ QUOTE ]
Yes; having recently transferred my main Villain to Virtue (in an effort to improve my ability to team with the folks I'm on a Global with - none of them had high level ANYthing on Infinity, where my MM was made) ... I've been lurking the Virtue boards to see if I wanted to start yammering at you lot.
And I watched, unhappily, as those threads were ruthlessly stomped-upon. 8(
[/ QUOTE ]
We've been getting modslapped (and actually specifically insulted by LightHouse in one case) for a good while now. That's a lot of why our forums are quickly degenerating into PWNZ jr.
That said, the PWNZ forum is pretty amusing so I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.
[ QUOTE ]
What the mods are saying is "let your sister use your stuff! when you stop her, she complains and we dont want to hear it! We dont care whet she does as long as we dont get bothered!"
If we let the carebears have full control of all forums they wont complain and the mods can get to doing what they wanted without bothersome moderation duties.
Just agree..they wont complain if you just go along with whatever idiot idea they come up with.
Sometimes you just have to say no. Many of the people with a problem with a negative respose dont want reasoning, they want absolute agreement.
[/ QUOTE ]
My mom used to make me let my sister borrow my stuff - but somehow, I wasn't ever allowed to borrow hers... my stuff always came back either worn-out or broken - with no compensation for me. I didn't like it then, and I'm not going to like it now.
I had a post all prepared earlier that kind of dovetails with your observation that the mods apparently don't want to have to mod. Seeing as how it is what they get paid to do, or at least part of what they get paid to do, I have a bit of a problem with this. If the inclusion of the I11 close beta forums is going to be that work intensive, then get more help - don't make the forum population suffer an iron-handed partially automated approach to moderation.
I don't intend to be insulting to our Community Leaders or any of the moderators - I've done my share of modding and administering a set of active and highly volatile forums - as a volunteer - and it's not fun in many cases. However, since they get paid to do this work, then a temporary increase in the workload should not dictate a change in how cases are handled. As well, all cases should be handled in the same manner... don't just look at who you have determined to be "problem posters" - look at everybody. Most of us have posted stuff that could be deemed useless fluff, negative or otherwise objectionable to someone. Consider the source when you look at complaints - don't take the complaint at face value anymore than /petitions in game should be taken at face value. Automating CANNOT take all of the variables and the situations into consideration.
Probably not going to be a terribly popular viewpoint, but ... it's mine, and they asked for it when they said "discuss here"...
Storm
Serenity is not freedom from the storm, but peace amid the storm ...
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't know your case specifically... but it seems that because you're still here... your history wasn't enough to get you banned. If you got a stern warning this time around... then take it as just that... nothing more.
Maybe your name recently showed up in somebody's tattletale and that's why it seems that they're pulling this out of the blue; maybe they're running some kind of filter (which would make this impersonal) or maybe they're just going through their list/log of situations that they actually had to step in and do something (which would also make it impersonal)... I honestly don't know the exact method that's being used... but there has to be a reason for them pulling up something 2 years old... (even if it is something a Bot is sifting through)
in any event... I still don't see this as double jeapordy; the way you are explaining it to me is more akin to the 3-Strike laws... yes, you may have been convicted and served time for your felony but that felony can still be referenced in the process to determine whether or not you'd be considered a 'habitual offender' and punished as such
Edit: IMO, however, when I think of names that should be worried about this... yours doesn't come to mind... at least, not in my dealings
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesnt deal with those that post bland comments guaranteed to set off a fire storm. Such as those starting "all defenders are healorz" threads in the defender forums.(just an example) They intentionally start threads intended to forment trouble. Banning "nerf this" threads would be a good start.
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes; having recently transferred my main Villain to Virtue (in an effort to improve my ability to team with the folks I'm on a Global with - none of them had high level ANYthing on Infinity, where my MM was made) ... I've been lurking the Virtue boards to see if I wanted to start yammering at you lot.
And I watched, unhappily, as those threads were ruthlessly stomped-upon. 8(
[/ QUOTE ]
We've been getting modslapped (and actually specifically insulted by LightHouse in one case) for a good while now. That's a lot of why our forums are quickly degenerating into PWNZ jr.
That said, the PWNZ forum is pretty amusing so I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Specifically insulted by Lighthouse? Intriguing, how so?
Stickied thread about the recent PERC event in the Virtue forums. A flame war erupted there. It was modded in a fashion that made one side look to blame and then LightHouse specifically posted that the attitudes of the Virtue forum were to blame for the entire affair and removed blame from the other side. Of course, he has since modified his own posts as well. He then encouraged us to discuss it, a thread was formed for that purpose which was condoned by Ex Libris. LightHouse had to leave town but assured us he would read it and give a full and honest response to all of the concerns. He has yet to return and it is now somewhere around 90 pages and has, of course, devolved into uselessness in the intervening weeks as it never got the promised response.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet if you're not breaking the rules, you've got nothing to worry about
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, tell that to jranger who didn't break any rules.
These new "/jranger is bannable" rules were invented to give them a reason to have him banned.
Search his posts. He doesn't insult, he doesn't flame he simply replies "no" to a lot of bad ideas. There was NOTHING in the rules stateing he couldn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, he replied "no" to ALL the ideas. I don't see how anyone can argue that he was being anything but a troll.
Seriously, when did half of this forum have lobotomies?
[/ QUOTE ]
Since when replying No to something meant anything else than disgreeing with the OP? What is wrong with that? And what is wrong with disagreeing with EVERY darn suggestions that were posted? I see no problem with that. He posted his own disagreement and never were any of you disallowed to simply overlook his reply and move along. How could he harm anyone?
[/ QUOTE ]
And it isnt as if there aren't a lot of pretty stupid suggestions lol.
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he replied to every single gorram suggestion with "no" and did his best to be the first reply in there is proof in itself. He got more persistent at it the more people bugged him about it. How can you possibly believe that was anything BUT an active effort to get a rise out of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
I can remember at least 2 yes's.
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he replied to every single gorram suggestion with "no" and did his best to be the first reply in there is proof in itself. He got more persistent at it the more people bugged him about it. How can you possibly believe that was anything BUT an active effort to get a rise out of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that was far less annoying than the 5 consecutive "POWER CUSTUMIZASHUN" threads. JRanger was amusing, but most of the people getting /JRangered were annoying.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he replied to every single gorram suggestion with "no" and did his best to be the first reply in there is proof in itself. He got more persistent at it the more people bugged him about it. How can you possibly believe that was anything BUT an active effort to get a rise out of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that was far less annoying than the 5 consecutive "POWER CUSTUMIZASHUN" threads. JRanger was amusing, but most of the people getting /JRangered were annoying.
[/ QUOTE ]
5?
Try like 25... 
[ QUOTE ]
He got more persistent at it the more people bugged him about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Key phrase here: people whined at him for it, so he became less inclined to just let a thread slide, and maybe started looking for things he disagreed with (but might not have cared to bother replying to), just to tweak the whiners' noses BACK a bit.
I'd say your own statements evince JRanger having not started things quite well. And this is coming from someone not displeased to see him gone (albeit, for the wrong reasons).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he replied to every single gorram suggestion with "no" and did his best to be the first reply in there is proof in itself. He got more persistent at it the more people bugged him about it. How can you possibly believe that was anything BUT an active effort to get a rise out of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that was far less annoying than the 5 consecutive "POWER CUSTUMIZASHUN" threads. JRanger was amusing, but most of the people getting /JRangered were annoying.
[/ QUOTE ]
5?
Try like 25...
[/ QUOTE ]
Aiming a bit low on that estimate aint you? 
I think JRanger's comments were the ounce of prevention, concerning stupid ideas getting to the forum. Too bad we needed about 6 metric tons of prevention, and the Mods seem to think that this new policy is the cure, even though it's just a syringe full of hot air.
It's like an episode of House. Kidneys will fail, the infection will get worse, and when the patient's almost dead, we're going to find out that JRanger was what we really needed in the first place.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP: I want the devs to add brightly-colored unicorns to CoH.
Responder 1: /signed
Responder 2: Yes
Responder 3: No
Does Responder 3 really need to go into a detailed explanation of why he or she feels adding brightly-colored unicorns to the game would negatively impact his or her experience? I suppose Responder 3 could have said, "No, because I wouldn't like brightly-colored unicorns in CoH." But isn't that implied by the simple "no"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Or they could of said "No. They wouldn't add anything specific to the city, and if we get unicorns, we should have the classics. White, and the rarer black. The developers like to add things with a strong classical base, and colors other than white and black don't have such."
Ever other person who would of gone /no can then quote that guy and /agree
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, they could have, but the point is that the /no contributed just as much to the conversation and the other respondents. None of them were ideal answers, as all could have provided quantifiers for thier positions. But under present guildlines only /no is being vilified.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has the suggestions forum always been in the "for fun" section (since they reordered the forums, I rarely read suggestions anymore - too far down in the list)? /yes and /no answers are acceptable to me on this one 
Storm
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, just recentlly got moved there, presumably for infractions of the nature being discussed here.
[/ QUOTE ]
I change which I think is particularly demeaning. Now, even the good suggestions are "just for fun."
[/ QUOTE ]
It is, but then again I'm pretty sure thats all they were ever for in the eyes of devs.
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, they could have, but the point is that the /no contributed just as much to the conversation and the other respondents. None of them were ideal answers, as all could have provided quantifiers for thier positions. But under present guildlines only /no is being vilified.
[/ QUOTE ]
no was rude
no did not addanything
no was pointless and worthless spam for padding yuor post cost
no was lazy
teh op shuldnt have to come back and ask why you didnt like what they suggested. i agree that /signed and such doesnt add much to the discussion which is why they shuld allow polls in teh suggestions forum. taht way the lazy dorks can click no or whatever the poll maker puts ion and not crap up the thred with spam
i'm not sure exactly when Jranger's 'no' parade started (which thread) but earlier that day... it wasn't about 'no', he was actually putting his two cents on something that had nothing to do the OP and that wasn't directed at him ... which was followed by a flamewar and then (after a brief hiatus...) the 'no' storm.
/no was pretty much a minor issue until it became a massive spam and troll campaign... it would've remained a minor issue at best but the ambulance chasers latched on and spread it like a disease (in number and intent); then it became a forum issue... which is more disruptive but at best, still minor
you couple that in with the people-and-thread bashing at a surging rate... then of course the 'red button' is also going to be hit at a corresponding rate; it goes from minor to major very quickly (and yes, if you're bashing a thread that is the same as bashing the creator of that thread - when you say that a thread is stupid; you're actually criticizng the intelligence/thought process behind it... ie. the OP)
The attitudes have gotten so self-righteous; that people are actually attempting to justify being meddlesome spammers, flamers and trolls. (And don't think that most people can't distinguish constructive criticism from 'slights of mouth')
Just because you think a thread is being used as flamebait doesn't mean it is just because you said so. (I've been accused of it on one or two threads when it wasn't the case just because some widgit chooses to read into something a particular way without asking questions before opening their massive gap.
People were given an opportunity to mod themselves and was given the reason why yet some insisted on biting the hand that was feeding them and you have the audacity to wonder why some of you are getting smacked down...
Even now, there's gnawing and the gnashing of teeth; well have fun with it while it lasts.
no one's confirmed or denied my impression of their being a no petitioning rule but if one does exists; /signed and /unsigned... /yes and /no responses are both violations... the rest, at that point, would be academics (and moot at that)
If there is not such a rule then I stand by assessment that a thread of /yes pretty much constitutes preaching to the choir and I don't see why the choir has to echo the same sentiment over and over (when /yes constitutes 100% agreement)
If a person likes the idea but wants to add, subtract or otherwise edit it then they're not at 100% agreement with the idea... this does not constitute a /yes... somewhere down the line... there is a disagreement about something in and/or about the idea... that would be a /maybe and just maybe that /maybe should be fleshed out a bit
If I'm a new poster to these boards and want to see what the forums are about before I start posting; if I scan 30 threads and see the same people posting /no everywhere, what are my options when drawing a conclusion about that group or the forums
1. If I hated every single topic that a bunch of /no was found... then I guess there's no problem
2. If I liked a few or more of the topics where a bunch of /no was found... then a problem begins to arise...
3. If it's the same person I'm seeing doing it in 90% of the threads that they're in... guess what, I've gotten my first impression of that person and it will affect how I deal with them in the event that I have to.
(remember... it's your choice whether or not to enter a thread, your choice whether or not to read it, your choice whether or not to respond - 3 decisions you have to make; 3 choices you are responsible for making and 3 choices you ultimately have to face the consequences of; good, bad or null)...
It's apalling to think that some think it's the OP's responsibilty to roll over when accosted, belittled or harrassed in their own thread.
It's pathetic that everyone that stands up for themselves or their ideas gets labeled as thin-skinned (heck, my skin would be thin too if a bunch of people kept rubbing on it continuously)
It's funny to me that the same people that can't leave a thread alone when it rubs them the wrong way are the same people that can't find their way out the forum door when the forum starts rubbing them the wrong way.
If you can't or refuse to adapt... leave, duh.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
[ QUOTE ]
It's apalling to think that some think it's the OP's responsibilty to roll over when accosted, belittled or harrassed in their own thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
It's apalling to think that you would decry unadorned disagreement as anyone being "accosted, belittled or harrassed". Furthermore, I have been told to leave threads, to "be constructive or go away", for posts that were quite lengthy and thoroughly described as to why I objected to, or disagreed with, someone's idea.
And the people saying those things? The very same people who were (and some of whom remain) vocal, repeated opponents of "/no". They don't just object to "/no", they object to any disagreement with their ideas. They're not here for discussion, for development of an idea into something good.
They're here for ego-[Censored]. Nothing more, nothing less.
...
Oh, and further? It's not "their" thread ... noone owns threads here except PlayNC, and Cryptic.
[ QUOTE ]
It's funny to me that the same people that can't leave a thread alone when it rubs them the wrong way are the same people that can't find their way out the forum door when the forum starts rubbing them the wrong way.
If you can't or refuse to adapt... leave, duh.
[/ QUOTE ]
How about, you adapt to the idea that not everyone is going to love your Unique and Special Snowflake idea. Some of us are going to disagree, or, just plain not like it.
Just like, if I post an idea? You may disagree, or even just plain hate it. Hey, that's fine ... maybe I'll come up with a different idea, prompted in part by your very disagreement or dislike!
It actually has happened before, elsewhere: someone so loathed the entirety of the first idea I came up with for something (part of an online, forum-based game), that I had to scrap it and go back to square one. In the process of avoiding the things from the first idea, I actually ended up coming up with an idea that not only did they actually like ... I thought it was superior to the first one, too.
And you know what? Their response to the first idea was, almost word for word: "Sorry but I hate every last bit of it."
Go figure, huh?
[ QUOTE ]
The OP shouldn't have to come back and ask why you didn't like what they suggested.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, but for one small detail - the OP doesn't HAVE to come back and ask why people disagree with their suggestion. The OP shouldn't have to CARE why people disagree with their suggestion unless these people can convince the OP that they have a point.
It's a two-way street. If someone doesn't care enough about refuting an idea to spend time explaining their position, then the weight of their disagreement is that much less. The very least a disagreement can do under any circumstances is add +1 to the count of for vs. against. In a logical debate, that is pretty much worthless as a means to decide the validity of a suggestion. So if someone doesn't want to elaborate, then that just scores points off weight of their post.
It's a simple trade off.
I agree that the OP shouldn't have to come back and ask why someone disagrees, because the OP really shouldn't care about people who disagree without due reason. You can't really discuss with such people. Furthermore, it's obvious they don't intend to discuss to begin with. So the smart thing to do would be to note their disagreement and move on like they weren't even there.
All I'm saying is there's no need to ban people who feel like expressing blunt disagreement. If you don't like them, their posts or feel they aren't contributing, then simply ignore them. If they couldn't be arsed to elaborate, then you really can't force them into a logical discussion anyway..
Again, we return to moderation while reading responses, which is something receiving almost no attention at all in favour of moderation while posting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I have no problem with constructive disagreement... (as stated ad-nauseum)
I do have a problem with snotty attitudes and snide remarks in what's supposed to be an open and 'communty' environment... that's primarily what I'm addressing being that I've seen so much of it
I've seen more of that than I've seen /no, and /no more than I've seen anything that remotely resembles suggestions on how to improve or make an idea workable. And I've seen dogma that holds little weight in the grand scheme of occurances that have come to pass.
If /no were a few and far between type comment... I'd personally have no problem with it... the thing is that it has become a trend with a plethera of posers that think they're cool or somehow militant for doing it... and I cannot stand that kind of a mentality
I am aware that some posters may react badly to constructive criticism but being that constructive criticism is rare (when compared to the other drek), it also stands to reason that those bad reactions are rarer still and virtually moot when compared to rude busybodies...
It's not the fact that people are simply saying, "I don't like it."... it's the fact that they're throwing a bunch of other crap in there with it.
It's gotten to the point that when certain people touch a thread, it's a fight waiting to happen.
As I've said before... I've seen people capable of cordially, respectively, politely, professionally, etc... disagree with a topic but I've seen double that amount in [censored] posters that think just because they don't like an idea, or the idea has been brought up more than twice... that it's funny or cool to go in and flex indignation, contempt, condescension or flat out hostility in a thread.
As far as thread/post possession; if you post something (thread or otherwise...) that gets you banned... it's all you and yours baby, all the way out the door.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with constructive disagreement... (as stated ad-nauseum)
[/ QUOTE ]
And I applaud you for that. however, many of your "don't say /no" compatriots are not so discerning. I've felt the lash of their ire for posting well-reasoned flaws in an idea, and clearly stating my total opposition to it. Often enough that, yes, I decided "why bother explaining to these people, they're just going to get ticked anyway ... '/jranger' ... there, good enough."
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen more of that than I've seen /no, and /no more than I've seen anything that remotely resembles suggestions on how to improve or make an idea workable. And I've seen dogma that holds little weight in the grand scheme of occurances that have come to pass.
[/ QUOTE ]
... "improve an idea or make it workable" - full stop, my friend. There are ides I just on't think are, should be, or can be made workable. Not even GOD almighty herself could possibly make such ideas workable.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as thread/post possession; if you post something (thread or otherwise...) that gets you banned... it's all you and yours baby, all the way out the door.
[/ QUOTE ]
You own responsibility for your posts, but you do not own the thread your post started.
[ QUOTE ]
... "improve an idea or make it workable" - full stop, my friend. There are ides I just don't think are, should be, or can be made workable. Not even GOD almighty herself could possibly make such ideas workable.
[/ QUOTE ]
lol, so have I... there's much in the way of ideas with extreme balance issues, trademark infringements, extreme cornyness, etc... but I let them be... I don't waste my time to even post a /no to it (if I feel that's all I'm capable of contributing to it); unless I like the concept... then I might suggest alternatives (like in the Rune Powerset thread)
I have the discipline to supress any urge that would force me to post something inane in a thread of a person that is not actively seeking to parse me off (as well as those that do)
and I enjoy brainstorming and working with people to make even what is seemingly impossible... somewhat feasable or workable... if I feel that I cannot do that, then anything else would be a waste of my time and theirs.
IMO, a thread started by me is of my thoughts and expression and I am being held accountable for it; by the community as well as the admin. (In referring t a post by me... the statement would more than likely consist of, "Your thread/post, 'X'...") Even if NCSoft/Cryptic holds rights to anything posted here... what I post is pretty much me and mine, I am not prohibited from taking any statement I post here and putting it into a personal notebook or elswhere and I can delete it at will. (but that's really not the issue at hand, is it?)
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
Hey, I didn't see this anywhere else in the thread. Would this be an acceptable solution to allowing various levels of feedback in the suggestion forum.
Make every suggestion thread also a Poll.
If someone would normally respond with a "yes", "/signed", or a "no", they can simply vote in the poll.
If someone wants to critique and add their constructive comments, they can reply to the thread.
If someone isn't getting many replies but a lot of "NO" votes, the OP could reply to the thread asking for someone to elaborate on their disagreeing vote.
Does that sound feasible? Both types of comments get to be left and both positive and negative opinions get to be expressed. No one needs to clutter up the thread with one word (or 367 word) responses that add nothing to the suggestion.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
Of course, any discussion about this topic other than here gets the brutal modstick treatment. Don't believe me? Just ask the Virtue community. Three times a discussion on how these moderation rules would affect threads in the Virtue forums (not the Infinity forum, not the Justice forum, not the Guardian forum... THE VIRTUE FORUM ONLY) gets the uber pimp-smack from the moderators after it was said that the Server forums were not a focus on such massive scrutiny. That immediate thread pruning is in and of itself .
Not everyone comes to these boards... not everyone wants to... and THAT should be respected by the mods. Sometimes you'd rather discuss a topic with your close friends in the privacy of your home, where you can actually be heard, than try to shout to be heard in the middle of the SuperBowl during halftime and you're there without a mic, being told to "go away... we're trying to watch the game". That last image is what happens to many people when they venture into the general threads/forums... they are a sheep in a lion's den and get summarily mauled.
I know that you want the discussion in one place, but sometimes it spurs side discussions (like the Virtue threads that were locked/deleted)... if you continue locking and deleting these threads because they aren't in the "official" threads, you could very well drive away people not just from the forums proper... but take their money to some other MMO with a community that doesn't stifle side discussions.
So, concerning these new moderation rules...
/no.
Ashes to ashes,
Pheonyx
The Cape Radio
"It's good to have friends. Wish I did." - Troy Hickman