Community Notification Discussion!
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2007-10-05 16:59 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
Nonetheless, despite all the strife the issue of "if /no is disallowed, then /yes shoudl be too" ... Ex elected to ONLY single out the negative half of that particular pairing.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how /signed and "yes" aren't on that list?
So they support one form of fluff but ban another?
That borders on hypocracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
... "borders on" ...? That's like saying Moscow "borders on" Russia ...! It is hypocrisy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nicely phrased, Pax.
Something that I think is interesting to note: most of the people I've seen defending the "/no" posts almost invariably give thorough explanations of why we disagree with an idea before we /jranger it.
I'm just sayin'.
I have some reservations about objections to a quick, simple one word "NO" as an occasional thread response. <ul type="square">[*]I have occasionally used "NO" although usually, as in this post, I include way too many words.[*]There ARE occasionally, some posts, that are so outrageous, so repetitive, and so unsupported with any ideas based in reality, that "No" is the only good answer.[*]Adding any longer, more in-depth answer than "NO" would actually suggest that you DO think the idea is worth discussing.[*]Not submitting at least "NO" leaves the idea that more people support the idea than really do.[*]I agree that OVERUSE all the time of the just "NO" response, would indeed be abuse, just like any canned, same response that one gave to many threads, even if they don't deserve it.[*]But banning a response that is occasionally the best response, Just because some people use that tool sometimes in an abusive way? That seems wrong.[/list]If someone submits a thread like:
"I think everyone should be able to get to level 50 in just one day!"
(or at least their own, even if they have to pay a little extra)
No matter how nicely they suggest it,
No matter what things they say to try to support the idea,
There are indeed so many reasons why not, but bringing up any just will get them arguing about the reasons.
Not replying would make it seem that you support it.
Just registering a "NO", is the best response.
I can give more examples if you need.
.
[ QUOTE ]
I can give more examples if you need.
[/ QUOTE ]
*ducks into a bomb shelter*
I am very disapointed at this turn of developments, though not surprised given past decisions by the NCSoft Moderators.
This is a sad day when the negatives are bannable, but a positive /Signed or /Yes is still alright. One thing I really hate is a hypocrite, and the mod team is looking very hypocritical at the moment. I will try to reserve judgement and wait to see how this all settles out. Maybe in time the rules will be slackened again as the situation that gave birth to them receeds.
I'vce been known to use all the bannable offenses listed in Ex's post. Often it is the simplest and most susinct response.
I don't know, but this anouncement is very troubling to me.
=. .=
Ya know, some people don't really care that much to type up a paragraph response to an idea that probably came from a 5 year old on LSD. A simple 'no' isn't going to derail a thread.
On that matter, will /signed be a no-no since it doesn't do diddly-[censored] for anyone?
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd like to see that the Mods being able help the Devs with getting feedback from the Closed Beta testers, and therefore getting speedier delivery from Closed to Open testing, than to see them being distracted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Concurred. I'd rather have the Community reps representing the community in front of the devs, and helping to gather feedback from playtesting and bug reports, than have them busy with moderation stuff.
Ex is just asking for some restraint in posting fluff that either leads to flaming or off-topic stuff, or makes it harder to find actual feedback when there's a bunch of fluff in the way.
Really what she's asking IMHO isn't stifling or draconian. It's asking for posters to be constructive in the forums used to gather bug reports, suggestions, feedback, etc. Even criticism can be constructive, so long as it's not flamey.
There are still at least two entire forum sections (For Fun! and the Server boards) where one can post almost anything one wants' within the standard guidelines.
That's all I have without stepping back into the realm of the previous thread from the S&I boards.
[ QUOTE ]
I have some reservations about objections to a quick, simple one word "NO" as an occasional thread response. <ul type="square">[*]
although usually, as in this post, I include way too many words.[*]There ARE occasionally, some posts, that are so outrageous, so repetitive, and so unsupported with any ideas based in reality, that "No" is the only good answer.[*]Adding any longer, more in-depth answer than "NO" would actually suggest that you DO think the idea is worth discussing.[*]Not submitting at least "NO" leaves the idea that more people support the idea than really do.[*]I agree that OVERUSE all the time of the just "NO" response, would indeed be abuse, just like any canned, same response that one gave to many threads, even if they don't deserve it.[*]But banning a response that is occasionally the best response, Just because some people use that tool sometimes in an abusive way? That seems wrong.[/list]If someone submits a thread like:
"I think everyone should be able to get to level 50 in just one day!"
(or at least their own, even if they have to pay a little extra)
No matter how nicely they suggest it,
No matter what things they say to try to support the idea,
There are indeed so many reasons why not, but bringing up any just will get them arguing about the reasons.
Not replying would make it seem that you support it.
Just registering a "NO", is the best response.
I can give more examples if you need.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
notice key difference...
you said "I have occasionally used "NO" "
offender responded to 'hundreds of posts' with no.
If you are asked by Mom to stop hitting yourself in the head with a bat, and you don't - well, Natural Selection (Darwinism) takes over 
No-one likes moderation. Lord knows I went kabloey last week when a mod wiped out my posting of an SG roster...in the big scheme of things, in a GAME...its, well, a game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how /signed and "yes" aren't on that list?
So they support one form of fluff but ban another?
That borders on hypocracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
... "borders on" ...? That's like saying Moscow "borders on" Russia ...! It is hypocrisy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually looking at the way Ex phrased it I expect taht /signed and yes are also on the mod list.
But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius
List of Invention Guides
interesting--one asked about jranger, another said see the jranger tribute thread
it was zapped as it had too much fluff
and it was in the server section
so the idea is a forum to exchange ideas between the player, and also to give feed back to dev team, yet you can't say no to an idea because it isnt constructive to disagree
i guess with this i go on the list
/JRanger
New Global: @American Decoy
�You are hereby promoted to Tiglath_Pilesest� - Squez
�no, you rocketed past ddx. you got LIGHTHOUSE -evil musak-� - DDH_Hamenopi
[ QUOTE ]
notice key difference...
you said "I have occasionally used "NO" "
offender responded to 'hundreds of posts' with no.
If his ban is perma, was pre-warned and likely given temp bans first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your response is irrelevant to my point, or to this thread topic.
This thread (and my post) is NOT about any bannings or particular cases which have taken place in the past.
This thread is a discussion of the edicts the devs have put out lately about how they will create watch lists and what kind of posts they want us not to post.
They have said "Please refrain from... " and gave examples. They said they will put people on watch lists (that means a step closer to being banned) if certain posts are used. <ul type="square">[*]MY POINT: An occasionally used "just 'No' " post can be the only appropriate reply.[*]A Single, or occasional, appropriate reply should NOT put you on a watch list.[*]Only the start of a pattern of abuse, should put you on a watch list, where as you pointed out, THEN you will be warned, and it is up to you to stop or not, and possibly be banned.[/list]
I also think posters should be able to vote yes or no on any idea suggested, without having to give all their reasons. I am more than happy as you can see, to spend time typing away, showing what I think. But I think depriving people of their input on an idea, if they don't feel like spending time giving their reasons, is wrong.
________________________
A secondary point in this same idea that has been raised in this thread is: "Are the devs going to put people who want to vote just 'Yes', on a watchlist? or just the people who want to vote just 'No'? "
But this thread is a discussion on future modding that will be done and has been announced, not past cases.
.
[ QUOTE ]
This is a sad day when the negatives are bannable, but a positive /Signed or /Yes is still alright.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should have another look at Ex's announcement, Tundara. Because as KidLazarus noted above, the announcement wasn't specifically calling out negatives and ignoring positives. Ex Libris' exact words were "Refrain from such posts as :"; the examples listed below were just that -- examples.
Also, this isn't some Gestapo-esque, outright ban. Again, to quote Ex: "Our moderation team has been placed on high alert for all forums above the "For Fun" and "Servers" sections." If you'll take a look at the main board, this would mean that - if I understand this properly - the News, Development, Player Help, Archetypes & Powers, and Player vs Player sections, along with their subfolders, fall under this "fluff-busting". City Life, Hero/Villain Culture, RP, Screenshots, Forum Games, Suggestions (really?!), and the entire Server section will remain "looser" areas of the board. Again, that's assuming Ex Libris hasn't misspoken. And that's not something she's particularly known for.
Positron: "There are no bugs [in City of Heroes], just varying degrees of features."
[ QUOTE ]
Really what she's asking IMHO isn't stifling or draconian. It's asking for posters to be constructive in the forums used to gather bug reports, suggestions, feedback, etc. Even criticism can be constructive, so long as it's not flamey.
[/ QUOTE ]
'No' and '/unsigned' are every bit as constructive and useful as 'yes' and '/signed'. Yet one can lead to banning, and the other seemingly does not.
Something is very wrong here.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really what she's asking IMHO isn't stifling or draconian. It's asking for posters to be constructive in the forums used to gather bug reports, suggestions, feedback, etc. Even criticism can be constructive, so long as it's not flamey.
[/ QUOTE ]
'No' and '/unsigned' are every bit as constructive and useful as 'yes' and '/signed'. Yet one can lead to banning, and the other seemingly does not.
Something is very wrong here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we have not actually heard yet whether 'yes' or '/signed' are on the naughty list...
But I still think we have a right and obligation to give input on ideas, and I agree a simple yes or no are constructive, because it gives a better feel that oh, a lot of posters support or disagree with this idea.
It is very annoying that the devs are now adding so much fluff to the votes in these threads, because now people have to make up a statement or two to add to their vote, so they don't get watch-listed!
I have thrown a new temporary signature together:
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how /signed and "yes" aren't on that list?
So they support one form of fluff but ban another?
That borders on hypocracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
So true. I call BS on this.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
The server sections and for fun are more often allowed to develop more of a community culture and less about direct feedback to the development team, that isn't to say it doesn't happen, but that is not the sole purpose of those forums. We do not pull feedback from server forums, those are created for player use.
[/ QUOTE ]
It really is a shame that this is not part of this moderation that is being upgraded with the other sections, the server forums is where most of the violations are taking place. More so than other forums.
The first 3 rules of the General Conduct is broken everyday and nothing is done about it.
General Conduct
1. Abuse will not be tolerated.
No flaming, trolling, harassing, profanity, abusive language or abbreviations, personal attacks, racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs.
This applies to both public threads and private messages. Do not link out from a post or private message to these types of content.
Flaming is defined as attacking others in harsh, personal terms.
Trolling is defined as deliberately posting derogatory, inflammatory comments/threads in order to bait other users into responding.
Personal attacks include, but are not limited to insulting a poster directly:
EX: You are stupid, you suck, and you should [censored].
Directly attacking another poster will result in a warning. If the behavior persists, you will be banned.
2. No character assassination threads
Threads that single out a player for ridicule or to accuse someone of actions in-game will be removed without notice. Repeatedly targeting another person is considered ongoing harassment and is a severe violation of the forum rules. In-game violations need to be reported via the appropriate channels (such as the GM system) or go to http://support.plaync.com and submit your issue to us via the Ask a Question tab. If you believe that in-game GMs and the support system have not provided a sufficient or timely response, you may submit an inquiry to members of the forum staff via PM. Public posts of such accusations will be construed as attempts to cause antagonism for its own sake.
No personal attacks against forum moderators or game developers. If you disagree with an action taken by a moderator, you can send your complaint via PM to the moderator or go to http://support.plaync.com and submit your issue to us via the Ask a Question tab. Abuse of the devs or moderators (including in PM) is likely to result in an immediate, permanent ban from the message boards, and can result in the suspension of your game account.
3. No spamming or thread bumping.
So until the server forums is regulated with the same manner, why should people even listen to this post? I agree they should be policed, they should be policed each and every day and be corrected immediately, instead of allowing it to go on as it does now.
[B]Leading Badge Holder in the City of Community[/B]
Owner & Operator of...
[URL="http://www.vidiotmaps.com/"]Vidiotmaps.com[/URL] & [URL="http://www.badge-hunter.com/"]Badge-Hunter.com[/URL]
[URL="http://net-warrior.mybrute.com/"][B][SIZE=3][COLOR=darkorange]Challenge My Brute[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/URL]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a sad day when the negatives are bannable, but a positive /Signed or /Yes is still alright.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should have another look at Ex's announcement, Tundara. Because as KidLazarus noted above, the announcement wasn't specifically calling out negatives and ignoring positives. Ex Libris' exact words were "Refrain from such posts as :"; the examples listed below were just that -- examples.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that she is that stupid, that she would not realise precisely what response and reaction such an omission would prompt ...?? I tend to give her credit for very specifically choosing those examples, every one of them for a direct reason.
Which in turn means, she very specifically, and for direct reasons, chose which items not to include in her list of examples.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, that's assuming Ex Libris hasn't misspoken. And that's not something she's particularly known for.
[/ QUOTE ]
PRECISELY my point.
[ QUOTE ]
But I still think we have a right and obligation to give input on ideas, and I agree a simple yes or no are constructive, because it gives a better feel that oh, a lot of posters support or disagree with this idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
While 'yes', 'no', '/signed', and '/unsigned' posts do let it be known how a poster feels about an idea it is in no way constructive. What makes it a good idea? What can be suggested to make it a better idea? What makes it a bad idea? Offering answers to those is constructive while just one word agree/disagree posts are pretty much just spam.
[ QUOTE ]
well, you just probably lost a lot of people for this stupid policy. so glad you decided to make all the babies feel all warm and fuzzy by not allowing a simple no or yes reply.
good job
[/ QUOTE ]
Weel, this "baby" is glad to finally see something being done. The one word answers and insults were inhibiting a lot of players from posting here. I hope that changes now. Thank you, Ex! 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The server sections and for fun are more often allowed to develop more of a community culture and less about direct feedback to the development team, that isn't to say it doesn't happen, but that is not the sole purpose of those forums. We do not pull feedback from server forums, those are created for player use.
[/ QUOTE ]
It really is a shame that this is not part of this moderation that is being upgraded with the other sections, the server forums is where most of the violations are taking place. More so than other forums.
The first 3 rules of the General Conduct is broken everyday and nothing is done about it.
General Conduct
1. Abuse will not be tolerated.
No flaming, trolling, harassing, profanity, abusive language or abbreviations, personal attacks, racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs.
This applies to both public threads and private messages. Do not link out from a post or private message to these types of content.
Flaming is defined as attacking others in harsh, personal terms.
Trolling is defined as deliberately posting derogatory, inflammatory comments/threads in order to bait other users into responding.
Personal attacks include, but are not limited to insulting a poster directly:
EX: You are stupid, you suck, and you should [censored].
Directly attacking another poster will result in a warning. If the behavior persists, you will be banned.
2. No character assassination threads
Threads that single out a player for ridicule or to accuse someone of actions in-game will be removed without notice. Repeatedly targeting another person is considered ongoing harassment and is a severe violation of the forum rules. In-game violations need to be reported via the appropriate channels (such as the GM system) or go to http://support.plaync.com and submit your issue to us via the Ask a Question tab. If you believe that in-game GMs and the support system have not provided a sufficient or timely response, you may submit an inquiry to members of the forum staff via PM. Public posts of such accusations will be construed as attempts to cause antagonism for its own sake.
No personal attacks against forum moderators or game developers. If you disagree with an action taken by a moderator, you can send your complaint via PM to the moderator or go to http://support.plaync.com and submit your issue to us via the Ask a Question tab. Abuse of the devs or moderators (including in PM) is likely to result in an immediate, permanent ban from the message boards, and can result in the suspension of your game account.
3. No spamming or thread bumping.
So until the server forums is regulated with the same manner, why should people even listen to this post? I agree they should be policed, they should be policed each and every day and be corrected immediately, instead of allowing it to go on as it does now.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are right, however, Ex has stated with the number of posts everyday they cannot search every single one. Therefore, until they CAN search every post for violations, let's give this a chance - shall we?
[ QUOTE ]
Just 10 minutes after I said this ...
[ QUOTE ]
sooner or later the sheriff has to just step in and do his job
[/ QUOTE ]
the sherrif shows up. I can't say I'm either surprised or unhappy about these changes; sometimes it's necessary for the pendulum to swing far in the other direction. Cracking down on the fluff and inane noise on these forums is a good step.
I don't think one word responses are, in and of themselves, bad but they're a slipperly slope that contributes to the overall deteriation of the forum. Of course, not many people would object to a "Yes" or a "/Signed" since those are positive responses. "No" is trickier. I don't believe that a negative opinion should require justification anymore than a positive one should, but while "Yes" is an affirmation "No" always comes across as dismissive. That in turn leads to ruffled feathers and flamewars. Slippery slope. And then you end up with nonsense like "/JRanger" which was exhausted of what little humor it had after about the third use.
And, really, how hard is it to type "I don't think this is a good idea, even if I can't put my finger on it" (which took me all of 9 seconds to type) rather than just "No"?
I wish they would just enable the poll feature in the Suggestions forums; people can then click No and move on.
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed.
...oh, yeah, I mean I support this position 100%. I love the player polls and I wish there were more of them. 
[ QUOTE ]
interesting--one asked about jranger, another said see the jranger tribute thread
it was zapped as it had too much fluff
and it was in the server section
so the idea is a forum to exchange ideas between the player, and also to give feed back to dev team, yet you can't say no to an idea because it isnt constructive to disagree
i guess with this i go on the list
/JRanger
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess some of you just aren't getting the point of all of this. Nobody said you cannot disagree with an idea. You simply cannot leave a one word response... you can write a full statement to criticise the technique, but you cannot give the same respect to another player's idea? And you hit it right on the head, the forums are for DISCUSSION, not one word answers or insults. Saying "no" isn't disagreeing. It's giving an insult. You are saying that this person doesn't deserve your time to explain your dissent. THAT is the reason this change has come about. If the idea is that bad that you don't want to elaborate, then the idea obviously isn't good enough to leave ANY response.
/yes or /signed answers don't usually need further explaination. If you answer that way, you don't have anything to debate with the OP, but that doesn't mean your post is fluff. It means that the idea you are agreeing with has another person backing it, so that if enough support is gained by it, the idea might get passed along to someone who can actually use it.
Simply saying no (/jranger) or /unsigned, without anything to back your dismissal, does not help make the original idea or statement better. Not responding at all does just as well as saying no, so you might as well not say anything at all if you don't have anything constructive to add to a thread about the game itself . That is what ExLibris is trying to get across.
There is a place for threadjacking, nonesense, and fluff. And there is a place for serious discussion about the game....you know..the reason why this forum exists in the first place? 
I would also like to add quote trees on the list of "watchlist offenses". You don't need to have a whole thread's worth of past quotes in your posts if you are only responding to what the last person said. And empty quote trees are just as meaningless.
If we monitored ourselves better, there wouldn't be a cry for more moderation from the community site folks.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, despite all the strife the issue of "if /no is disallowed, then /yes shoudl be too" ... Ex elected to ONLY single out the negative half of that particular pairing.
[/ QUOTE ]
negative (adj.) 1. Containing, expressing, or implying a denial or refusal; that says "no" [a negative reply] 2. Opposite to something regarded as positive; specif., a) lacking in positive character or quality; lacking evidence, affirmation, etc.; having the effect of diminishing, depriving, or denying [a negative personality] (Webster's New World College Dictionary Third Edition)
The key word being negative. You can disagree all you want, doesn't have to mean being negative. That is what all of this is about. The negativity in these forums is off the chart. This is supposed to be a place where discussion rules, not /jranger or /no answers. If you stop and think about it, you have to admit that it has gotten way out of hand lately and this is a step in the right direction. The community needs to come together and start helping each other instead of trying to insult each other. We can all help by being less "negative". That is all.
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how /signed and "yes" aren't on that list?
So they support one form of fluff but ban another?
That borders on hypocracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where does it say that list is exhaustive and all-inclusive? It clearly states, "such as," and then lists a few examples. Until a redname specifically states that "yes" and "/signed" or exempted, I see no reason to think they are. They're as unsubstantial as their antithesis monosyllabic posts. Not everything on the list are posts that fall on the negative side; "LOL" usually carries a positive connotation, since you are, after all, laughing at someone's joke.
Kid Lazarus, 50 empath Defender
Freek, 50 mind/psi Dominator
Black Khopesh, 43 db/wp Scrapper
Circuit-Boy, 40 elec Brute
Graf von Eisenfaust, 38 db/wp Brute
Blue Banshee, 35 sonic Blaster
Blood Countess, 33 mind/storm Controller
Dr. Radon, 32 rad Corruptor
Phantom Pirate, 32 db/wp Stalker