Community Notification Discussion!
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2007-10-05 16:59 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
[ 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 ]
And your first answer Said all that was needed.
It told us you too. felt that way.
It told us the person that you replied to is not the only one that felt this way.
It adds to our idea of whether we as a group agree or disagree with this point.
Did your second answer add anything of substance?
Nope. It only added fluff.
It is now mandatory that we add fluff to posts like these, by making up an expanded sentence or two.
.
.
I'm here for an argument
Sums up this discussion rather nicely, I think.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
I never said I was not going to give this a chance, I was simply stating how I felt about the rest of the forums being policed.
I have reported many posts and or topics that break the rules I posted in my previous post and they never get taken care of, they always sit there for 2-3 weeks before someone finally does something, and normally this is done after I have to send a pm to one of the rednames here on the forums and I shouldn't have to do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Same here. There are several up right now in Triumph that break one or more of those.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
[ QUOTE ]
I'm here for an argument
Sums up this discussion rather nicely, I think.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. While that IS an excellent comedy bit by the MP crew, it is not applicable to people who honestly disagree with a suggestion, see no way to make the bad idea seem more palatable, and want to enter their input.
"No", in that case, is not just Nay-saying. Nay-saying means that no matter what the person had said the answer would have been "no" or opposing.
The few times that I have found that "NO" was the only appropriate answer, I had seriously read the suggestion. I saw nothing that was a good idea in the original, and could see no suggestion that could make it any better.
Giving any more answer than NO, would only be adding fluff.
Not giving the no would be a good man sitting back and doing nothing. (They say that is the real definition of 'evil').
That is not nay-saying. That was simply making my view also known, in the most appropriate response to that particular idea. There are just times that 'No' IS the best answer.
Yes, I know MW has suggested that 'NO' by itself is an insult.
In a couple of the cases above, if I had gone through each of the points in the original and pointed out why it was a bad idea and it would never work. I honestly think the original poster would have felt worse that way than If I just said 'NO', to make my vote known to others, and not leave only people there supporting the bad idea.
.
[ 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.
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 ]
All the Mods are saying,
is give self-moderation a try.
They'll have to split themselves with moderating the Closed Beta Forums and the regular Forums. And to make sure things are ok here in the regular Forums, all they are asking is for us, the community, to keep it civil and to not just go spamming to pad the thread count.
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 ]
Exactly. The announcement is 100% about what CaptainIntrepid posts above.
Lighthouse
Community Relations Manager
If you have a specific in game, account, tech or billing problem please contact our Customer Support team via The Knowledge Base "Ask A Question" page.
There's a point being missed.
If someone poses an argument or presents an idea, and someone else posts "Yes" or "/signed" after it, no further explanation is warranted because the explanation was presented in the original post.
It's if the argument or idea is disagreed with that explanation is required. Simply posting "No" is ignorant in these circumstances because it dissents without making an argument.
On that basis, simply posting "Yes" is acceptable because the argument has already been presented and posting "No" is not, because it presents no argument.
Either way, there was nothing to say that posting "Yes" was any more acceptable. As mentioned, the list provided was hardly exhaustive.
There is a segment of the population here that gets its jollies from being rude and insulting to other posters. They hide behind the anonymity of the internet and seek to elevate themselves at others' expense. Frankly, I feel that this kind of thing is long overdue. If that makes me a "carebear" or a "baby" then I'm delighted to be so labeled.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Yes. yes, We all know how we can respond if an idea is partially good or partially bad.
But there will continue to be times when I feel that an idea is so good and well-researched that there is nothing I need or want to add. But I still want to show my support of it so that it will encourage people to suggest/implement it.
And there will continue to be times that an idea is so bad, or game-breaking, or destructive to the CoX way of life that again there is nothing that I can suggest that will make it a good idea. Or as bad as the idea is, it keeps getting brought up every two weeks, and I don't have the time or energy to politely point out all the bad points of the idea . . yet again.
But I still want to quickly show my anti-support of the bad idea.
In both cases, I want to express my support or nonsupport, and I expect others to be free to also, so I can get a feel by glancing through the post whether there are a lot of people for or against the idea so that I know whether I should possibly get in to argue the points so that a good idea might get implemented, or a bad idea discouraged so that a few vocal people don't make it look like we WANT that bad idea.
The only way I will agree that it is good to limit people's simpler inputs to ideas, is if a poll is attached to the post, so that we still get a representative feel on where the idea is heading.
Insisting that everyone who wants to register their support or objection convert their short reply into a few sentences is ONLY adding static amd spam to the forums, or chasing away people who don't want to spend that much time on the forums.
.
.
<QR>
I'll just add that when I post a suggestion, and somebody posts "no" or "/unsigned", I do consider that constructive criticism of my idea. It's obviously not as useful as a detailed explanation of the objections, but I would rather have a short response from an individual than no response at all.
As another example, I started a poll in the Market section a while ago. The purpose of the thread was to get a sense of where the community stood on a particular question. I was also interested in people's rationale, if they chose to explain themselves, but eliminating "yes" and "no" responses would've totally defeated the purpose of that thread, which now has 500+ replies.
It's the personal attacks, not "/jranger," that cause the problems.
[ QUOTE ]
There's a point being missed.
If someone poses an argument or presents an idea, and someone else posts "Yes" or "/signed" after it, no further explanation is warranted because the explanation was presented in the original post.
It's if the argument or idea is disagreed with that explanation is required. Simply posting "No" is ignorant in these circumstances because it dissents without making an argument.
On that basis, simply posting "Yes" is acceptable because the argument has already been presented and posting "No" is not, because it presents no argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss a point too. (which is somewhat strange since you actually made the point too)
People who say yes, or /signed, want to build support for the idea. And they are able to whether they want to (or can) expend the time to even really think about the idea and come up with a few sentences, or not.
But you suggest that people who do NOT like the idea MUST expend that extra time and effort, even though they also, may only want to give their input and SLOW building support for a bad idea.
trying to object, should NOT be harder than showing support.
Neither should be inhibited.
.
P.S. I also have made the point that they did not say that "/signed" was not on the alert list. (but will you, with a straight face, tell me that you honestly think they would warn people about agreeing with too many posts? Go ahead. Try to say that sincerely now without cracking a smile.)
.
.
[ QUOTE ]
<QR>
I'll just add that when I post a suggestion, and somebody posts "no" or "/unsigned", I do consider that constructive criticism of my idea. It's obviously not as useful as a detailed explanation of the objections, but I would rather have a short response from an individual than no response at all.
As another example, I started a poll in the Market section a while ago. The purpose of the thread was to get a sense of where the community stood on a particular question. I was also interested in people's rationale, if they chose to explain themselves, but eliminating "yes" and "no" responses would've totally defeated the purpose of that thread, which now has 500+ replies.
It's the personal attacks, not "/jranger," that cause the problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I totally agree.
Thank you, you gave a real life example of what I have been trying to say theoretically!
Being able to get a feel for which way the wind is blowing, is often as important for me as the other aspects of the discussion.
.
[ QUOTE ]
So Ex, did you neglect to mention the PvP forums as exempt, or will all of PWNZ be banned come tuesday? 
[/ QUOTE ]
You say that like it's a bad thing. :P
Seriously, I'd think that the PvP section should be counted as a 'fluff-safe' area, else there's little point in even having it.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a point being missed.
If someone poses an argument or presents an idea, and someone else posts "Yes" or "/signed" after it, no further explanation is warranted because the explanation was presented in the original post.
It's if the argument or idea is disagreed with that explanation is required. Simply posting "No" is ignorant in these circumstances because it dissents without making an argument.
On that basis, simply posting "Yes" is acceptable because the argument has already been presented and posting "No" is not, because it presents no argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss a point too. (which is somewhat strange since you actually made the point too)
People who say yes, or /signed, want to build support for the idea. And they are able to whether they want to (or can) expend the time to even really think about the idea and come up with a few sentences, or not.
But you suggest that people who do NOT like the idea MUST expend that extra time and effort, even though they also, may only want to give their input and SLOW building support for a bad idea.
trying to object, should NOT be harder than showing support.
Neither should be inhibited.
.
P.S. I also have made the point that they did not say that "/signed" was not on the alert list. (but will you, with a straight face, tell me that you honestly think they would warn people about agreeing with too many posts? Go ahead. Try to say that sincerely now without cracking a smile.)
.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
But therin lies part of the issue. When you provide support, you're providing support for a premise that has been presented. The reasons for the support are already available for scrutiny.
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
Re: PS; I wouldn't say that because of the reasons I've described above.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Your attempt at spin shows a complete lack of honesty and character on your part. A negative response(saying 'no' or 'I don't like this idea') IS NOT the same thing as being negative towards somebody(being insulting). You know this, you are just inentionally attempting to spin the defination to suit your point. While you have every right to your opinion, how about you try to not just make stuff up?
[ QUOTE ]
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm just gonna start posting, "I do not like this idea" That should get the point accross. [censored] whiners. I don't owe you, or anybody else and explanation for anything.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm just gonna start posting, "I do not like this idea" That should get the point accross. [censored] whiners. I don't owe you, or anybody else and explanation for anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's only a matter of time before someone throws that on the list too. I really hope this kind of enforcement is temporary.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm just gonna start posting, "I do not like this idea" That should get the point accross. [censored] whiners. I don't owe you, or anybody else and explanation for anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do if you expect your assertion to have any weight. Whenever I see a "No" post, or a disagreement with no explanation, I ignore the post because it says nothing. Saying you like or dislike something and not providing any explanation is an empty argument.
I'm still curious about one thing. When you have someone that is so passionate about an idea and you then in turn say you dont agree, and actually decide to tell them why instead of just /no or /jranger, then they start going off in the thread about how you disagreed... does that not usually lead to flaming??
From what I've gathered I have already seen it in this thread. People that disagreed with Ex's posts were quoted. One person went as far to make four posts in a row and give a definition as to why the previous posters were wrong. Won't someone get offended by that? Won't that eventually lead to flaming?
Like I said just curious..
Sounds good to me . It's long overdue.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm just gonna start posting, "I do not like this idea" That should get the point accross. [censored] whiners. I don't owe you, or anybody else and explanation for anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do if you expect your assertion to have any weight. Whenever I see a "No" post, or a disagreement with no explanation, I ignore the post because it says nothing. Saying you like or dislike something and not providing any explanation is an empty argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I care if any paticular person believes my post holds any weight?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm just gonna start posting, "I do not like this idea" That should get the point accross. [censored] whiners. I don't owe you, or anybody else and explanation for anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do if you expect your assertion to have any weight. Whenever I see a "No" post, or a disagreement with no explanation, I ignore the post because it says nothing. Saying you like or dislike something and not providing any explanation is an empty argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I care if any paticular person believes my post holds any weight?
[/ QUOTE ]
In that event, why post at all?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're goin to disagree with the premise, you have to provide the reasons because they have not already been presented. Simply posting "No" doesn't do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm just gonna start posting, "I do not like this idea" That should get the point accross. [censored] whiners. I don't owe you, or anybody else and explanation for anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do if you expect your assertion to have any weight. Whenever I see a "No" post, or a disagreement with no explanation, I ignore the post because it says nothing. Saying you like or dislike something and not providing any explanation is an empty argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I care if any paticular person believes my post holds any weight?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's a post in response to an attempt to change the game, you'd want that post to be constructive. Otherwise you're spamming someone's attempt to bring something to the game and not adding anything relevent.
/no and things along those lines aren't constructive, and are unnecessary. If it's so silly that it actually warrants a spiffy dig like /no or other snarky spurns, it's even more impressive to see that post left with no responses whatsoever rather than a flood of inconsequential dissent.
The Paladin
Steel Canyon, Virtue
Exalted
@Paladin
[ 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 ]
I slept on this, but you know what? There's still one major, massive problemw ith the whole program:
It relies on counting up times a Moderator edits posts made by a given account. So ... if the Moderators never get around to editing (including outright deletion) of someone's posts ... they get a free pass.
Which makes it a LOTTERY OF DOOM: are you the unlucky person whose minor, not really important infractions get editted enough times to be Warned ... while the true, outright trolls go un-edited and un-deleted, thus getting a bonus "get out of jail free" card ...?
It's like playing Russian Roulette, with a permaban at risk rather than a bullet to the head!
Flawed execution of a flawed concept. This "tracking system" would only work properly if the moderation team responded - in a timely manner! - to each and every Notification, and took action every time it was within the rules to do so.
...
Anyone want to start a pool on who draws the Short Straw next?
[ QUOTE ]
Which makes it a LOTTERY OF DOOM: are you the unlucky person whose minor, not really important infractions get editted enough times to be Warned ... while the true, outright trolls go un-edited and un-deleted, thus getting a bonus "get out of jail free" card ...?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yet if you're not breaking the rules, you've got nothing to worry about. Know how worried I am about being banned? 0%. Because I understand the rules and I will abide by them, even if I don't 100% agree with them.
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
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
I never said I was not going to give this a chance, I was simply stating how I felt about the rest of the forums being policed.
I have reported many posts and or topics that break the rules I posted in my previous post and they never get taken care of, they always sit there for 2-3 weeks before someone finally does something, and normally this is done after I have to send a pm to one of the rednames here on the forums and I shouldn't have to do that.
[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]