Community Notification Discussion!
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2007-10-05 16:59 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Part 2 - /yes vs. /no
this is comparing apples to oranges.
If the OP posts and details a topic and someone /yesses it... then that's pretty much the end of the discussion between the OP and that particular responder; the responder is echoing what the OP stated and it would be redundant for the responder to regurgitate the OP.
When the OP posts and details a topic and someone /noes it, it creates questions that the OP or other casual readers may want answered. Once you have gone out of your way to enter a thread, read it and respond... expect to provide an explanation for your response if it's bound to bring up questions.
[/ QUOTE ]
False: A /yes is an indication that someone agrees with the question but does not find it worthwhile to type up a point by point or expanded explanation for why they agree.
A /no is an indication that someone disagrees with the question or idea but does not find it worthwrhile to type up a point by point or expanded explanation for why they disagree.
By your logic unless someone feels like spending the time to write out a detailed argument (which will likely then get modded in my recent experience) then every idea or suggestion presented should always be agreed with as in the absence of dissenting voices the vocal minority prevails.
That idea is ridiculous.
despite either of our opinions on the yes/no fiasco... the fact remains that the rules are in place... (as well as a rule about not petitioning -if I'm not mistaken)... it's up to you whether or not your opinion will affect how you you choose to act upon them
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 ]
Part 2 - /yes vs. /no
this is comparing apples to oranges.
[/ QUOTE ]
Both round, both fruits, both sweet. Terrible analogy, really.
The mods are favoring apples hugely, and I don't think Floridians are going to appreciate this much.
[ QUOTE ]
despite either of our opinions on the yes/no fiasco... the fact remains that the rules are in place... (as well as a rule about not petitioning -if I'm not mistaken)... it's up to you whether or not your opinion will affect how you you choose to act upon them
[/ QUOTE ]
True, but this is the 'officially sanctioned' discussion thread. I would assume that discussion is not only allowed but encouraged. I don't assume they read or care what we say about it, but this is the right place to talk about it is it not?
never said that it couldn't be discussed (have no idea where that assumption came from)...
just gave my take on it, reponded to a rebuttal, and then left it alone...
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 ]
never said that it couldn't be discussed (have no idea where that assumption came from)...
just gave my take on it, reponded to a rebuttal, and then left it alone...
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Yogi, we got mod-slapped like red-headed school children back in the Virtue forum earlier and I'm still on the defensive.
/jranger
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
no worries 
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 ]
Part 2 - /yes vs. /no
this is comparing apples to oranges.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not within the framework that Ex Libris has put the issue: "fluff", and "[does] little to contribute to the discussion". Both are equal in that regard, so it's more like Red Delicious and Granny Smith ... both apples, just different kinds of apples.
[ QUOTE ]
Part 3. - The sad thing is:
It's the usual suspects that are getting outraged over this.
They're worried about getting retroactively punished for all of the free passes (in the form of edits and warnings - as opposed to outright bans) they have gotten in the past for things they could've avoided in the first place (had they the mind and discipline to do so)
[/ QUOTE ]
They weren't free passes. They were the moderation policy of the time.
There's a reason, for example, that in real life a person cannot be charged retroactively under a new law: because retroactive penalties plain old stink.
I'd have zero problem if the tracking was "from this day forward"; fine, it's what I myself asked for. My problem is that everyone is now subject to double jeopardy for past infractions. Things we were already dealt with over, are now being brought back up again.
at Pax:
as someone here tried to tell me... rights in the real world don't apply to privileges here
however, I don't believe that... nor do I believe that this is a case of retroactive charging...
I see this more as a case of a group of parolees that are up for review (or a group of miscreants/felons going up before a parole board)... Edit: or even a military review board (on the matters of discharge)
Edit: or even in reverse... going up for promotion/raise reviews... your history will have an impact on a future decision
I will state that I would prefer a this day forward approach but even if that applied... some responders have already screwed themselves within this very thread
My additional opinion is that the implication for this was already dropped in the last Dev thread on this subject (the one that got locked) and therefore it should've been from that thread forward with most participants in the flame- war/bait/trap with Silver (or Shiver... whatever) being banned at that time
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 ]
at Pax:
as someone here tried to tell me... rights in the real world don't apply to privileges here
however, I don't believe that... nor do I believe that this is a case of retroactive charging...
I see this more as a case of a group of parolees that are up for review (or a group of miscreants/felons going up before a parole board)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying anything about rights - I meant to refer to the underlaying principle that, in the real world, created those rights.
And I do believe this is a case of retroactivity ... and I know so directly, because I've been given a Warning for September ... based in part on an edit ... that, as best I can recall, was from sometime in February or March. That is inarguably retroactive.
And what's wrose, I already was spoken to directly - and I agreed I'd stepped over the line, apologised, and took my lumps without argument. But now here it is, being brought up again, creating a new, much more threateningly-worded Warning.
Don't tell me things aren't being brought up retroactively - they are.
Don't tell me these things aren't being used for a blatant case of Double Jeopardy - they are.
[ QUOTE ]
My additional opinion is that the implication for this was already dropped in the last Dev thread on this subject (the one that got locked) and therefore it should've been from that thread forward with most participants in the flame- war/bait/trap with Silver (or Shiver... whatever) being banned at that time
[/ QUOTE ]
No change of policy this significant should be merely implied. And IMO, it shouldn't go into effect until after it is explicitly stated. Ideally, in fact, the announcement should have a lead time - even if only an hour or two - before the policy goes into effect.
[ 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 ]
Cry harder next time.
If you don't wish to say more than a single syllable, then don't post at all. Why is that tough?
For example:
Idiotic suggestion is made:
Ignore it.
or
Post: No. Your idea is stupid. Next time, please don't waste our time posting gibberish that has been spewed here before. Five minutes of forum searching would have shown how wrong you are. Good day.
That's better than a simple no, yes?
Be well, people of CoH.
idealistically, yes... there should be a warning or lead time (which would happen to have been the last thread on this and the one prior; in which was stated that if the community couldn't moderate themselves... steps would be taken)... and here we are
but realistically, most Terms of Use/Service state that things can be changed without notice... don't know if that's the case with NCSoft ToS... but most of my dealings online and with special offers, events (and some not so special) have had a clause to this effect.
and i didn't say this wasn't retroactive... I said this wasn't 'retroactive charging'; to me... people have already been charged (like a criminal going up for parole)... this is just a case of your charges being reviewed... if you have a bunch of charges they don't like when they do your review (despite apologies to the community, victim or family) then you're out of luck.
If you lack a long list of charges or your charges are considered minor enough... you may get a reprieve and be allowed parole (as long you keep your nose clean)
Edit: -In the example you listed (after rereading it), it may have just been a case of them finally getting to you after the fact
(ie. someone filed charges... they conducted a slow investigation and then brought charges against you)...
it's happened to me IRL; We beat up an alleged rapist, he filed a complaint... it took them almost a year to catch up with and question us... then they arrested one of the guys involved
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 ]
and i didn't say this wasn't retroactive... I said this wasn't 'retroactive charging'; to me... people have already been charged (like a criminal going up for parole)... this is just a case of your charges being reviewed... if you have a bunch of charges they don't like when they do your review (despite apologies to the community, victim or family) then you're out of luck.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is definitionally double jeopardy. At the time, the action taken was deemed sufficient. It then stops there - or at least, ethically, it should. The powers-that-be aren't supposed to be able to go "yeah, you know? We don't think you've suffered enough. Have some more. (weeks pass) Hey, remember that thing, with the more? Yeah, uh, we change our minds again, you still need more. (weeks pass) Hi again, yep, it's the thing with the more, and the more again. Well, more again, again. (...)"
Or to put it in TOS terms? NCSoft already TOOK the action they deemed appropriate at that time. Per our contract, the issue was over and done with (or should have been). Taking additional action, at a subsequent date, for the same infraction ... isn't in the contract.
[ QUOTE ]
If you lack a long list of charges or your charges are considered minor enough... you may get a reprieve and be allowed parole (as long you keep your nose clean)
[/ QUOTE ]
They appear ot have gone back an entire two years. Things that were okay (in the sense of "the issue was dealt with and the matter purportedly closed") under "a prior administration" are now not okay, and are apparently being revisited. With a heavier hand. And that's just not right, IMO.
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: -In the example you listed (after rereading it), it may have just been a case of them finally getting to you after the fact
(ie. someone filed charges... they conducted a slow investigation and then brought charges against you)...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, Lighthouse PMed me directly about it, at the time. That's not a matter of "a slow investigation", that's more like "six months after paying your speeding ticket in full without contesting it, you are served a summons and made to pay the whole amount again ... because policy changed."
[ QUOTE ]
So ... you advocate an atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia towards your fellow posters? You advocate a climate in which we must suspiciously eye every single word or letter posted by someone to whom we wish to respond, on the merest off chance that they might have slipped up?
...
That's not a community.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't live in America, do you?
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So ... you advocate an atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia towards your fellow posters? You advocate a climate in which we must suspiciously eye every single word or letter posted by someone to whom we wish to respond, on the merest off chance that they might have slipped up?
...
That's not a community.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't live in America, do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do (as bothering to look at my Location, to the left, woudl have already told you). Why do you ask?
[ QUOTE ]
So ... you advocate an atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia towards your fellow posters?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not a community.
[/ QUOTE ]
I posted my question specifically because of the fact that you state you live in the US but you don't recognize the fact that you live in a community infested with suspicion and paranoia.
This is nothing new.
I, for one, hope more bannings occur. Nothing wrong at all with a bit of purging.
Be well, people of CoH.
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
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 ]
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'
[/ QUOTE ]
Still not the same thing. What's happened to me doesn't require any subsequent action to be done by me - that old mistake of mine was resurrected behind the scenes, by their (yes, AFAIK, automated) filter. I believe it would have come up even if I had been a virtual Mother Theresa on these boards for the past six months.
Heck, if I'd been absent for six months, even.
And that just strikes me as "not right". So I dearly, DEARLY hope I'm wrong. Somehow. Despite the evidence of my eyes.
[ QUOTE ]
Still not the same thing. What's happened to me doesn't require any subsequent action to be done by me - that old mistake of mine was resurrected behind the scenes, by their (yes, AFAIK, automated) filter. I believe it would have come up even if I had been a virtual Mother Theresa on these boards for the past six months.
Heck, if I'd been absent for six months, even.
And that just strikes me as "not right". So I dearly, DEARLY hope I'm wrong. Somehow. Despite the evidence of my eyes.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are many ex-cons that share the same sentiment...
Justice can be blind especially when it changes it's officers... (Edit: Maybe changing their filter setting would help alleviate some of this?)
sometimes Justice can just be a mean ol' cantakerous -explicative- (but I don't think that this is the case this time around)
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
The announcement tells me that we need to self moderate...
Obviously our bretheren here need help in doing so...
SO,,,obviously it is up to all of us to "
Notify Moderator" any and every infraction to the rules of the forums. I for one would like to see all of the lurkers among us ( like myself) take the time to do our duty and report every infraction we see...as obviously, this has gotten way out of hand. Right? 
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Apparently, I'm "in the top ranking of posting violations" for September. *shrug*
[ 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.
They are banning because emo kids know where the notify moderator button is and it makes more work for them.
JFS
-The Legendary J-Man-
This all makes about as much sense... as me telling the kids "There is a new rule; no running in the house." and then at the same time punishing them for running in the house last week.
For the love of all things dear.
From the original post:
[ QUOTE ]
Our moderation team has been placed on high alert for all forums above the "For Fun" and "Servers" sections. By high alert they are searching for specific violations.
Refrain from such posts as :
[/ QUOTE ]
That means, quite literally, that what follows are merely EXAMPLES of the TYPE of posts that would fall under this notification. In other words that is NOT an exhaustive list. No such list could ever be developed. The instant such a list actually hit the boards, someone out there would find a new and exciting way to be a complete idiot then cry "it's not on the list! BAAAWWWWW" as defense. So SOME examples were given, to provide an idea of what is a bad idea. This is reinforced by the following, again from the OP.
[ QUOTE ]
or other such fluff posts that do little to contribute to the discussion. Continued such posts will result in action on our part to curb the behavior.
[/ QUOTE ]
OTHER SUCH. OTHER such.
My Lord. You people and your BAAAAWWWWWWWWW.