Community Notification Discussion!
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2007-10-05 16:59 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
This disappoints me. I am serious when I say I have strong misgivings about staying here with these rules. Reason is, I may violate them. And if I gotta keep looking over my shoulder... well, I have other things to do, if that's the case. It would suck, of course, as I really like the tech community, but... well, not under that kind of hyperaware of what I type need.
See, I only really haunt the tech forums. I peruse the announcements, devs, and player event ones, but don't much post there. I have no use for the others, unless pointed to by some other thread. The Tech forum *is* a community unto itself, and I feel as if it's sort of my "home" here. Bill, Mid, Shego, Horatus, Father, Wolf, and so many others I have not room for them all, it's fun to interact with them, have discussions, etc.
Because of this little community we have there, I made a new thread that indeed is not a tech/bug issue, but was, I thought, well recieved and welcomed with open arms, about the newest member of my family clan. I wanted to share. Indeed, that thread (last I checked, I'm here, and haven't been back to see if it's been deleted or what, given the new rules) was used to share other joyous events within the tech forum community, and *that* is what makes it awesome.
Now, according to this, I would be banned for sharing my joy of being an uncle for the fourth time, as it's definitely 'fluff.' Thanks. I am really happy about this. I, for one, strongly object to the new rules. But hey, it's a 'benevolent dictatorship', so you guys/gals do what you gotta do. Either it works for me or it doesn't, and we'll just see if I screw up or not. Because, as we all know, if you let *me* slide, others will clamor about it... so I can't slide, society must be protected... or something like that, right?
/probably has nothing to worry about... but does anyway. :P
August 31, 2012. A Day that will Live in Infamy. Or Information. Possibly Influence. Well, Inf, anyway. Thank you, Paragon Studios, for what you did, and the enjoyment and camaraderie you brought.
This is houtex, aka Mike, signing off the forums. G'night all. - 10/26/2012
Well... perhaps I was premature about that whole 'signing off' thing... - 11-9-2012
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, tell that to jranger who didn't break any rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
No? Because I seem to recall these two being long time rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2. Keep feedback constructive.
3. Keep feedback high-quality.
[/ QUOTE ]
That the mods chose to overlook violations doesn't mean the rules didn't exist. Whether or not repeated "No"s can be viewed as constructive is highly debatable -- and I lean heavily towards no -- but it's certainly not high quality. He spammed the boards repeatedly with his banal monosyllabic retort. Personally, I'd be surprised if he even read half of what he was "no"ing.
[/ QUOTE ]
From Ex Libris, 10/02/07, 7:08 p.m.:
[ QUOTE ]
Whether you feel a certain response is rude, it is not against the rules of this forum and therefore action will not be taken against someone who states a dissenting opinion, even if it is very short and not backed up with an argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
If she wants to revise that policy, then that's all well and good. If she wants to ban people for violating that policy, even if the violations occured before said policy was implemented, well, I think that's pretty poor form, but it's within her authority as Community Rep to do that.
But let's not sit here and pretend that the rules were clear, and that certain individuals were knowingly flaunting those rules, because that's pretty clearly not the case.
The anti-"/no" criterion is brand new.
<QR>
I am shocked and appalled to read the list of new posting requirements that are now in effect. No one syllable posts? No lols or just block quoting what someone else has said then adding no discernible new value to them? This is clearly a way of nerfing future posters from ever achieving the Forum Cartel or Cuppa Incarnate forum titles.
I mean, can you actually imagine filling 10 000 posts full of quality, well thought out responses? The burden this places on the individual poster is extremely onerous and I think unfair on those players who wish to monosyllabically grind their way into those max lvl forum titles.
Please please please Ex and LH, let us go back to loling and tl;dr'ing our way to the higher echelons of forum titles; any other scenario is clearly a nerf on post counts and an attack on the civil freedoms of democracy itself.
(Oh, and if someone else has already posted this, this thread was tl; dr)
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im gonna use this next time I see something even Corky from Life Goes On would recognize as horrible
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, tell that to jranger who didn't break any rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
No? Because I seem to recall these two being long time rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2. Keep feedback constructive.
3. Keep feedback high-quality.
[/ QUOTE ]
That the mods chose to overlook violations doesn't mean the rules didn't exist. Whether or not repeated "No"s can be viewed as constructive is highly debatable -- and I lean heavily towards no -- but it's certainly not high quality. He spammed the boards repeatedly with his banal monosyllabic retort. Personally, I'd be surprised if he even read half of what he was "no"ing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing, prior to Ex's announcement on Friday, made his post against the rules. They did not fall outside of the then-stated definition of "sufficiently constructive", nor did they fall outside the then-stated definition of "sufficient quality". A rule was enacted, after the fact, which made those things no longer acceptible. And it is ethically reprehensible to punish someone ex post facto.
Mind you, I say this despire having despised JRanger, and had him permanently on /ignore. I don't regret that he's gone - but the how and the why of it leave a very bad taste in my mouth: it wasn't done right.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's ironic that you said this in reply to Muad, as he is the poster most likely to use that response.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's ironic that you said this in reply to Muad, as he is the poster most likely to use that response.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have seen this before as has anyone who looked treu the SWG Fourms before the NGE feasco came out. All boiled down to someone new at the work place and someone getting fired/leaving. As might be what is happening in this case. If so grab your hats boys and girls and get ready for someone to flush the toilet as the walls fall down.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
no
Dear Ex Libris Et All.
I believe that in enacting this new rule you are making a mistake. If this new rule were presented as a suggestion to which you wanted our reaction, I would have replied with a hearty /Jranger underlined and with several exclamation points following it. I do not agree with this rule, and make no commitment to you to follow it.
Why? Because No is a perfectly legitimate answer. In fact I believe that just a simple no is in fact less rude then no reply at all.
When someone posts a suggestion on these forums (which is the main time I have seen or used the /no reply) they are not just making a statement, they are in fact asking everyone in the forums a question. They are saying XXXXX is my idea, do you like it?
Now a perfect reply would consist of something like yes, I like it. Points 1,2 and 5 address concerns I have always had, point 3 would fill a whole weve all been complaining about and point 6 gives me warm fuzzies in my special places, or perhaps it would consist of No, I do not care for this proposal, points 1 and 2 would be unbalancing due to xxx and point 3 would cause the end of civilization as we know it. Those would be the most constructive responses. However, not everyone has the time nor the inclination to write out such lucid responses to every suggestion they read. Often they will if the topic engages them sufficiently, but if the topic does not they respond with a yay or nay and move on. In doing so they have answered the posters question, provided (at least a portion of) the requested information and in short contributed to this community
Now however, we are being told that we can only follow this paradigm if we are in agreement with the suggestion. If we are in disagreement, we must now provide justification for our positions or maintain silence, while no such onus rests upon those in agreement with the suggestion. This is not only an oppressive and seemingly overtly PC rule, but it is also just bad data collection practice. To put stipulation upon one answer that are not present upon the other will result in a bias towards the non-stipulated answer and in so doing invalidate the results.
There are any number of reasons why a person may choose to simply answer no to a suggestion. Perhaps they do not have the time to write a fully formed response. Or maybe the reasons they would present have already been mentioned, or maybe they are not sure why they disagree, they simply do. In any case the reply of no conveys just as much information as does the reply of yes (or /signed). They both state agreement or lack thereof, and fail to provide any basis for this opinion.
I really wonder why you felt the need to put forth this rule at this time? Is a speed trap thing? Where you enforce a rule heavily for a very short time to cull a practice in its formative period, knowing that you have no intention of enforcing the rule until the trend begins again? Or are you actually convinced that a negative reply is inherently hostile while a positive reply is always a good thing? Let me ask you (et all in particular) if you walk up to someone in a room and ask their opinion on something, which would you rather they do; ignore you or simply say no. Personally, while neither is the optimal response, I would prefer to at least be acknowledged, even if they do not share my views.
Now the vast majority of the other rules in place within this community I agree with, and so hold myself bound to (at least most of the time). Personal jabs and flames I (generally) avoid. Racial remarks I loath and inferences towards someones religion, gender or sexuality for purposes of insulting said individual is something I never do. These rules I agree with and so follow.
However, the next time I see a suggestion to which I do not agree but still feel compelled to respond to I shall do as I have always done. Either I will write a detailed explanation of my position, or I will just say no (or perhaps Nah, /unsigned or even the dreaded /Jranger). What happens next is up to you (ex and crew that is, not the et all company).
You may tell me whether or not I may speak, but you may not tell me what I can or cannot say.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
But these boards are for presenting ideas, and for discussing their merits and disadvantages. They are not a popularity contest.
If any of us feels the idea is so good it does not need elaboration, then we have nothing to add and should not, since mere agreement is neither discussion nor constructive. This takes away the /signed and /yes posts.
If we feel the idea has merit but could be improved upon, then we can, and should, reply explaining what we believe could be done better with the idea. That is constructive feedback
If we feel an idea is bad or poorly thought out, we should reply, explaining the problems we see with the idea. Adding a way to improve the idea is not necessary. This is constructive criticism.
If we feel an idea is so poor that we do not want to say anything about it, then we should not as that would be stating out dissent and these forums are about presenting and discussing ideas, not about voting for them. That should remove the need for /no and /unsigned posts.
The above plus basic common respect for other people, regardless of what we think of their suggestions, would go a long way to reduce the need for moderations on these forums.
Nadira
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what does /jranger stand for anyways? I never understood that one.
[/ QUOTE ]
JRanger would reply to every thread he disagreed with:
[ QUOTE ]
no
[/ QUOTE ]
He was then banned. /jranger is now used in memory of his permeating dissent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh wow, he got banned? I was wondering when that would happen... Although I really don't like that people are trying to "immortalize" his inane nonsense.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see him as a victim and a martyr of the system. He was only stating his opinion. He wasnt insulting anyone.
May god bless JRanger. He fought for freedom til the end.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking, right? He wasn't stating his opinion, that was glaringly obvious. He was responding to every single suggestion with simply "no". In fact, I'm quite sure he didn't even read most of the posts he "no"d. It was clear he was doing it because he knew it irritated people.
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
[ 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?
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
[ QUOTE ]
<QR>
I am shocked and appalled to read the list of new posting requirements that are now in effect. No one syllable posts? No lols or just block quoting what someone else has said then adding no discernible new value to them? This is clearly a way of nerfing future posters from ever achieving the Forum Cartel or Cuppa Incarnate forum titles.
I mean, can you actually imagine filling 10 000 posts full of quality, well thought out responses? The burden this places on the individual poster is extremely onerous and I think unfair on those players who wish to monosyllabically grind their way into those max lvl forum titles.
Please please please Ex and LH, let us go back to loling and tl;dr'ing our way to the higher echelons of forum titles; any other scenario is clearly a nerf on post counts and an attack on the civil freedoms of democracy itself.
(Oh, and if someone else has already posted this, this thread was tl; dr)
[/ QUOTE ]
lolz
What does QR mean anyway?
Infinity and Victory mostly
dUmb, etc.
lolz PvP anymore, Market PvP for fun and profit
When someone uses <QR>, or similar, it means they hit the "quick reply" button, and are not necessarily responding to the person who shows up in the "RE:" line.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
no
[/ QUOTE ]
Too lazy to read this all, what the hell is going on here?
Infinity and Victory mostly
dUmb, etc.
lolz PvP anymore, Market PvP for fun and profit
[ QUOTE ]
Too lazy to read this all, what the hell is going on here?
[/ QUOTE ]
First, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
Thsi thread is for discussing that very announcement. Technically, your post amounted to "tl; dr" ... and is now very verboten by the new forum rules.
I think this Ex Libris person is just asking to be modded she posts how to mod her in her sig. So whenever I see one of her posts I do.
That and her avatar features an angel being struck by lightning which has got to be more offensive than some of the "religious" names that have gotten genericed in game.
Infinity and Victory mostly
dUmb, etc.
lolz PvP anymore, Market PvP for fun and profit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Too lazy to read this all, what the hell is going on here?
[/ QUOTE ]
First, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
Thsi thread is for discussing that very announcement. Technically, your post amounted to "tl; dr" ... and is now very verboten by the new forum rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
O noes, I might get banzored from teh forums. *yawn*
Infinity and Victory mostly
dUmb, etc.
lolz PvP anymore, Market PvP for fun and profit
i hope people don't respond to their children the same way they respond (as addressesd) to threads and would consider it as 'constructive'.
The '/no without explanation/constructive dialogue' (with the supposition of being constructive) does not hold up in child or criminal psychology... it doesn't even hold up in animal training or the tech behind subliminal affirmation programming
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 hope people don't respond to their children the same way they respond (as addressesd) to threads and would consider it as 'constructive'.
The '/no without explanation/constructive dialogue' (with the supposition of being constructive) does not hold up in child or criminal psychology... it doesn't even hold up in animal training or the tech behind subliminal affirmation programming
[/ QUOTE ]
By that reasoning why do they think it will work in controlling the forum population? All we usually get as explanations is some double speak and rhetoric which is no more valuable than a simple "no" would have been. Occasionally they contradict themselves instead.
[ QUOTE ]
i hope people don't respond to their children the same way they respond (as addressesd) to threads and would consider it as 'constructive'.
The '/no without explanation/constructive dialogue' (with the supposition of being constructive) does not hold up in child or criminal psychology... it doesn't even hold up in animal training or the tech behind subliminal affirmation programming
[/ QUOTE ]
...I tell my daughter NO without explaination all the time.
"Mommy can I have a cookie right now" (five minutes before supper and she SEES me cooking it)
"NO"
Can I have.
NO
I WANT
NO
I WANT I WANT I WANT
NO!
@MrsAlphaOne
Member of the [url="http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=171543&TabID=1451954"]RIMC[/url]
[url="http://www.freewebs.com/mrsalphaone"]DA![/url]
[color=red]Official Beer Wench of PWNZ[/color] Arc 452196 When Madness Reigns over Reason. Play it and PM me your constructive criticism on what I can tweak before Oct 20th. <3 U all
Oh come on. At least toss a
"because I said so" in there.
When my daughter does this she gets:
No
why not?
Because I'm cooking dinner. You can see that.
but I want one! *now whining*
I might have given you one after dinner but you just lost that as well. Any other questions?
...no...
Uh oh, that last "no" didn't add anything constructive to the punishment/discussion. You'll simply have to ban her from all cookies from here on out.
"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
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, tell that to jranger who didn't break any rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
No? Because I seem to recall these two being long time rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2. Keep feedback constructive.
3. Keep feedback high-quality.
[/ QUOTE ]
That the mods chose to overlook violations doesn't mean the rules didn't exist. Whether or not repeated "No"s can be viewed as constructive is highly debatable -- and I lean heavily towards no -- but it's certainly not high quality. He spammed the boards repeatedly with his banal monosyllabic retort. Personally, I'd be surprised if he even read half of what he was "no"ing.
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