Discussion: Forum Rules Revision
By
Absinth_Incubus,
Posted on: 2008-07-21 13:00 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
That's no fair, we can't make fun of Joke Thompson anymore.
[ QUOTE ]
12. No Legal Action threads.
Using the forums or PMs for encouraging, promoting, endorsing, or inciting any kind of legal action against anyone is strictly prohibited. Such content will be removed, and the author's posting privileges may be permanently suspended as a result.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is worst is even some of the mods are guilt of this.
Dirges
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Use other words.
[/ QUOTE ]
Odd point that.
Officially, the following sentence has no cussing:
"I'll farking cuss on this gorram forum any time I frelling want to."
Yet any geek worth his salt knows what I said.
Is this allowed?
[/ QUOTE ]
God help me. I know what every damned one of those words meant. 
It's always good to be among my people! (i.e. Geeks!)
JUSTICE
Caveman Etc: Inv/Stone Tank, Hyperdrive Etc: Gravity/Kinetics Controller, Terra-Storm Etc: Earth/Storm Controller, Cpt. Thunderstrike: Energy/Electric Blaster, Psicada: Sonic/Energy Blaster, Neon Ranger: Archery/Electric Blaster, Devlin Hellshot: Dark/Dual Pistols Defender
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is people don't "keep it in line". I've been watching the forums deteriorate at a rapid pace over the last 3+ years to where anyone who posts to a topic with an opposing view to the majority is quickly flamed, harassed, and belittled in a way I haven't seen since high school. It's really not an appropriate way for any adult to act, yet it has become the norm. I like a spirited debate, but that doesn't seem possible anymore as people very quickly move from discussion to personal attack and character assassination, and it's the reason I don't really post much anymore. I don't see the point if I'm just going to get verbally assaulted for having a differing opinion or chose to play devil's advocate.
I mean just look at the recent flood of posts regarding the change to Energy Transfer. It's literally impossible to sit down and read the entirety of these threads as the vast majority of the posts are little more than personal rants full of hyperbolic nonsense. And heaven help the poor souls that chimed in with "well I tested it myself and it's really not that bad..."
Those who have been here long enough should well remember CuppaJo, who though well-beloved also carried a very large, heavy ban stick, and wasn't afraid to use it. People knew exactly where the line was and that the line was going to be enforced. And the forums were a better place for it. But once the job title was elevated to Community Rep, and involved a lot more than policing the forums, things got way out of hand. So I'm glad to see we now again have dedicated moderators who will be strictly enforcing the rules. It really does make the forums a better place for everyone.
As for all the people complaining about how "vague" the rules seem, com'n, let's grow up a bit. Anyone over the age of 10 should know what's appropriate to say in public and what's not. And forums like this are very much public places. If you even have to question if something you've written is inappropriate, chances are IT IS and you shouldn't post it. Likewise, if it's something you wouldn't comfortably be able to say at the dinner table, at a holiday or party, in the middle of a supermarket, or would make your grandma pull you into the bathroom by the ear with a bar of soap in her hand, again, probably not a good idea to hit the "ok, submit" button.
And if by chance you happen to post something you honestly felt was ok but turns out not to be, you'll first be notified with a warning and an explanation. That should be enough for most people to get a pretty clear idea of where the line is. If not there will likely be a swinging ban stick in your future. While it may seem harsh to you, the rest of us will be better for it. If you can't play nicely in the sandbox, teacher isn't going to let you partake in recess...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry.. these are THE tamest internet forums I frequent. And I frequent a lot of them. And it really hasn't changed much around here in the last 4 years.
I was Pro-Ed back when the news of it was first released. That was derogatory flaming, that was. I still managed to smile. Some people take everything a bit too seriously, in my opinion.
"His Imperial Majesty's Minister of Restraints and Leather" -LHF
Two naughty acronym teams / Ascension / Convenient / Artic and the Chillz / Fap / Other teams I can't remember (sorry.. mind is goin')
[ QUOTE ]
That's no fair, we can't make fun of Joke Thompson anymore.
[ QUOTE ]
12. No Legal Action threads.
Using the forums or PMs for encouraging, promoting, endorsing, or inciting any kind of legal action against anyone is strictly prohibited. Such content will be removed, and the author's posting privileges may be permanently suspended as a result.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is worst is even some of the mods are guilt of this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ya, can we get a ruling on this?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's no fair, we can't make fun of Joke Thompson anymore.
[ QUOTE ]
12. No Legal Action threads.
Using the forums or PMs for encouraging, promoting, endorsing, or inciting any kind of legal action against anyone is strictly prohibited. Such content will be removed, and the author's posting privileges may be permanently suspended as a result.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is worst is even some of the mods are guilt of this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ya, can we get a ruling on this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, you're picking apart a solid rule here. It's pretty clear what the rules mean. Talking about Jack Thompson is one thing, but threatening to sue him is another.
Talking about Marvel v. Cryptic is one thing, saying you'll sue someone is an entirely different one. I think it's pretty clear that you can discuss happenings and events, you just cannot threaten action on these forums.
Maybe instead of lawyering and loophole-finding, we could actually suggest clear ways to improve the rules. For example, I think it would be a great addition to have a rule on "Armchair moderation". It only serves to be abusive and, often, hinders moderation as a moderator must take multiple actions. It would be nice to see these people asked to stop so that forums can discuss posts and not what each other things is right or wrong, good or bad, or against the rules.
One last attempt at clarity:
I'm apparently having a hard time expressing my concerns about the impartiality of moderation. Part of the cause of this is that bringing up examples of past actions involving staff which seemed to be wholly partial to one group or another even to explain why I was concerned would be a violation of the rules and cause for banning. Unfortunately, the concern itself would then be more properly taken up with board staff. In the past, I have attempted this with those who my concern regarded with little actual success or rational discussion in response. Unfortunately the stock reason given for this lack of response is that their time is limited. However, I receive multiple responses on the subject until I point out that none of these responses have actually addressed the initial question.
I have not, nor do I know of anyone who has, ever received other than a canned and non-specific response from the NCSoft support e-mail bandied about regularly as the next phase of having concerns addressed. The few times I have attempted to use it in fact I have often received responses that appeared to be in response to a completely different e-mail than the one I sent in given that they addressed a completely unrelated issue in as much as they addressed anything.
Can we bring up specific examples of past incidents in this discussion for purposes of illustrating our concerns?
[ QUOTE ]
One last attempt at clarity:
I'm apparently having a hard time expressing my concerns about the impartiality of moderation. Part of the cause of this is that bringing up examples of past actions involving staff which seemed to be wholly partial to one group or another even to explain why I was concerned would be a violation of the rules and cause for banning. Unfortunately, the concern itself would then be more properly taken up with board staff. In the past, I have attempted this with those who my concern regarded with little actual success or rational discussion in response. Unfortunately the stock reason given for this lack of response is that their time is limited. However, I receive multiple responses on the subject until I point out that none of these responses have actually addressed the initial question.
I have not, nor do I know of anyone who has, ever received other than a canned and non-specific response from the NCSoft support e-mail bandied about regularly as the next phase of having concerns addressed. The few times I have attempted to use it in fact I have often received responses that appeared to be in response to a completely different e-mail than the one I sent in given that they addressed a completely unrelated issue in as much as they addressed anything.
Can we bring up specific examples of past incidents in this discussion for purposes of illustrating our concerns?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with non-specific examples. My understanding is the rules are there to prevent people from discussing specific incidents with specific individuals or characters that have resulted in some kind of GM or moderator intervention. It's along the same lines as to why the support staff won't provide a player with any kind of follow up information if they file a harassment/griefing petition, nor will the staff provide the accused player with the name of their accuser. There is little to nothing positive that can be gained by discussing these matters as they relate to specific people or characters.
But this is not to say you can't discuss a particular issue without naming names. In this way the discussion can focus on the issue itself and not the people or characters involved.
So if you have a concern regarding moderator impartiality you could discuss it as long as you didn't call out a particular person or tie it to a particular issue, because ultimately that only brings the conversation back to that issue and person, and not the original topic of perceived impartiality.
But if you were to leave all the specifics out and refer only to "instances in the past", then the thread is much more likely to stay on topic and be a positive discussion instead of a flame-fest.
Some of these incidents (in particular the two that cause me the greatest concern) would be easily recognizable without naming names and impossible to discuss in such a manner as to remain completely non-specific. Moreover, in the past leaving things completely non-specific has always gotten a response (possible legitimately) stating that the staff had no recollection of such an event. This makes discussing past events in a completely non-specific way less than ideal and in fact wholly useless for illustrative purposes.
I do understand why it would generally be preferable, but it is not always possible while retaining meaning.
[ QUOTE ]
One last attempt at clarity:
I'm apparently having a hard time expressing my concerns about the impartiality of moderation. Part of the cause of this is that bringing up examples of past actions involving staff which seemed to be wholly partial to one group or another even to explain why I was concerned would be a violation of the rules and cause for banning. Unfortunately, the concern itself would then be more properly taken up with board staff. In the past, I have attempted this with those who my concern regarded with little actual success or rational discussion in response. Unfortunately the stock reason given for this lack of response is that their time is limited. However, I receive multiple responses on the subject until I point out that none of these responses have actually addressed the initial question.
I have not, nor do I know of anyone who has, ever received other than a canned and non-specific response from the NCSoft support e-mail bandied about regularly as the next phase of having concerns addressed. The few times I have attempted to use it in fact I have often received responses that appeared to be in response to a completely different e-mail than the one I sent in given that they addressed a completely unrelated issue in as much as they addressed anything.
Can we bring up specific examples of past incidents in this discussion for purposes of illustrating our concerns?
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what you are trying to do. As I was attempting the same thing. From what I have learned in my recent experiences, and communications, it would not be acceptable to reference these events in public. If you have a specific incident you want to discuss without risking the possibility of action being taken on your forum and/or game account I would suggest that you PM Lighthouse with your question.
I know that doesn't guarantee an answer, but it's pretty much what the mods are going to say to you.
I do want to stress to everyone that they can and will eventually take action against your game account, as well as your forum account, if you continuously disobey the rules, warnings or any other actions they take against you. I'm sure a lot of people are aware of that, but I wanted to state it again just in case.
[ QUOTE ]
Some of these incidents (in particular the two that cause me the greatest concern) would be easily recognizable without naming names and impossible to discuss in such a manner as to remain completely non-specific. Moreover, in the past leaving things completely non-specific has always gotten a response (possible legitimately) stating that the staff had no recollection of such an event. This makes discussing past events in a completely non-specific way less than ideal and in fact wholly useless for illustrative purposes.
I do understand why it would generally be preferable, but it is not always possible while retaining meaning.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that is the case, then these would be issues not suitable for discussion in the forums.
<QR>
Perfect example to the dicussion at hand-
[ QUOTE ]
I'm above taking crybabies stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
This post made by "someone" on 7-18-08. I notified a moderator to it's presence only to find out that a moderator has been notified already BUT the post still stands.
This of course will fall under the catch all rule about the "whim of a moderator"- but really it is just a post of someone calling another poster a crybaby and the post still stands.
A reason why one insulting post is allowed to stay but another is not is all most people are asking for.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
One of the problems I see is the perceived bias of the moderators on certain kinds of posts. By way of example I will give a non-specific example that is completely fabricated, yet reflects trends that I, and others, have noticed.
Poster_Boy_Adam post a well-written and informative criticism titled The New Grape Power Isnt Good. His post is about a recent change made by the developers. While the post is critical, it in no way falls into an insulting tone. The post goes on to include suggestions that would make the change less of a problem to him as a player and poster.
Troller_Boy_Neil responds with a snarky and insulting post that questions Poster_Boy_Adams sanity, parentage and cleanliness.
All subsequent posts, either ignore Troller_Boy_Neil or questions his motives for posting but do not fall to the level of insults. This doesnt go on for long, because the thread is quickly locked, even though the discussion has moved away from Troller_Boy_Neils insults and stayed on topic to Poster_Boy_Adams initial well written post.
But shortly after Troller_Boy_Neils initial insulting post he then starts a new thread titled The New Grape Power Is all Good. This post is not well written, it is merely a diatribe against posters and players that dont like the recent change, many posters attempt to respond to this thread, since the other thread has been locked, as a way of redirecting the vitriol away from Troller_Boy_Neils post and into the realm of constructive criticism. Each attempt however is responded to by Troller_Boy_Neils insults, those who attempt to report him, find that he has already been reported, but at no point does the thread get locked.
Months later, the snarky thread is still active, with occasional posts from both devs and moderators on the subject, but the snarkiness from Troller_Boy_Neil never goes away, or gets modded in any fashion. When discussion flags, you can bet that Troller_Boy_Neil will Necro that thread.
Meanwhile Poster_Boy_Adam finds that some other posts that he started or responded to have been deleted, but no word as to why ever reaches him.* Strangely only posts critical seem to disappear, those not critical, or defending the devs remain.
Please note, none of the names used are real, nor are they representative of any actual posters.
*From actual experience.
[ QUOTE ]
By doing just a /signed, you are saying "hey, great idea i like it" which is great to show positive sentiment towards the idea, but it's not constructive to the discussion of WHY it should be implemented.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil and sometimes /signed is just, "hey, great idea i like it." and I have nothing more of value to add other than to show that the OP is not alne in their opinion/idea.
[ QUOTE ]
One last attempt at clarity:
I'm apparently having a hard time expressing my concerns about the impartiality of moderation. Part of the cause of this is that bringing up examples of past actions involving staff
[/ QUOTE ]
May I suggest that this is where you're finding problems? The past moderation, as I understand it, was nothing more than outsourced persons residing in foreign countries. These are not in-house moderators who were beholden to anything NCSoft had to say.
That has changed. Koschej and Niviene are completely in-house. I have even talked with Koschej before and he has told me that he was in the office mere feet from the working Castle. His boss is no longer a nondescript man in India who runs moderation companies.
So what does this have to do with past instances? Simply put, they cannot get away with the same stuff as before. The rampant favoritism will not be running about. In fact, despite speaking with Koschej on a semi-regular basis, I am more than sure that he will not hesitate to take moderation action against me. Why? He has a job to do, and I'm sure he would like to keep that job (even if it is moderating these forums).
[ QUOTE ]
A reason why one insulting post is allowed to stay but another is not is all most people are asking for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Koschej and Niviene are two people. Lighthouse and Ex Libris are two more. Those are probably all the moderators we have. Can you imagine how many reports they get a day? I have moderated large forums before. You can easily get anywhere from 100-300 posts reported a day. You have to clear every single one of those posts. Now, with all due respect, imagine that you come into work for 5 hours and you have 500 reports you have to clear. You have to look at each one, compare them to the rules, then make the judgment call as to if it is disruptive.
Now imagine that every single one of those 500 reports could result in 500 people asking "Why?"
I want you to then answer one question for me:
How is it that after 500 reports which possibly result in 500 objections that 1 post makes it through?
In all honesty, some of you are expecting perfection from Koschej and Niviene. They're not perfect. They're going to miss a few posts. They're going to make the wrong call. They're even going to disagree with each other about how it should be handled. That is the nature of being a human moderator. As users, we have some choices but two stand out to me:
1) Demand answers and bog them down with 500 reports, 500 demands of reversal, and endless posts about clarification...
2) Trust that they really do not want to lose their jobs and will use their best judgment and best abilities to improve these forums.
The choice really is yours on which to follow. Personally, I'd rather they not quit in frustration because of a small few who want to pester them with endless loopholes and countless exceptions. Our moderation team has been doing a pretty good job versus moderation of old.
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil and sometimes /signed is just, "hey, great idea i like it." and I have nothing more of value to add other than to show that the OP is not alne in their opinion/idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is stopping you from saying "Hey, great idea. I like it. I have nothing to really add other than to show you that you're not alone in what you want"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By doing just a /signed, you are saying "hey, great idea i like it" which is great to show positive sentiment towards the idea, but it's not constructive to the discussion of WHY it should be implemented.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil and sometimes /signed is just, "hey, great idea i like it." and I have nothing more of value to add other than to show that the OP is not alne in their opinion/idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then instead of writing "/signed", write "hey, great idea i like it." Or maybe: "not much I can add to that; great idea!"
I'm sure the mods don't expect every post to be a seven-paragraph breakdown of pros and cons for each and every little thing. But even a little insight wouldn't hurt, even if that insight amounts to nothing more than you saying that the OP is right on the money.
Positron: "There are no bugs [in City of Heroes], just varying degrees of features."
[ QUOTE ]
Then instead of writing "/signed", write "hey, great idea i like it." Or maybe: "not much I can add to that; great idea!"
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that just rephrasing the same thing, though? People wouldn't "/sign" something unless they thought it was a good idea. And they would type something else unless they had nothing more to add. Thus, "/signed" implies "I like the idea exactly as stated, and have nothing more to add."
The benefit to allowing "/signed" (or any of its variants) that I see is that it helps to keep popular ideas alive instead of merely controversial ones. Controversial ideas are going to evoke more discussion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are higher in demand than other ideas that everyone might agree on. However, if threads with popular ideas die off because everyone is in agreement with nothing more to add, then that can give the perception that those ideas are less popular than they really are.
IMO, "because I want it" is a good reason for why something should be implemented when it comes to a game. NCSoft is making a game that they want people to have fun playing. If a lot of people like a certain feature, that can be a good enough reason in and of itself to implement it. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone will always get what he or she wants, nor should anyone expect that. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to voice their opinions about what they want even if the only reason is, "it would improve my gaming experience".
[ QUOTE ]
What is stopping you from saying "Hey, great idea. I like it. I have nothing to really add other than to show you that you're not alone in what you want"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe its too long to type? /signed means the same while requiring less words .
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is stopping you from saying "Hey, great idea. I like it. I have nothing to really add other than to show you that you're not alone in what you want"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe its too long to type? /signed means the same while requiring less words .
[/ QUOTE ]
The community reps are trying to encourage discussion. In effect, they are suggesting that /signed doesn't mean "great idea, I like it." They are saying /signed means "great idea, I like it, but I can't be bothered to state why, or I don't even know why but I still think its very important that others know this fact."
The problem here is that its very unlikely that the devs will implement any player idea *precisely* as described. So although you might think that expressing your general support without any rationale for why ought to be taken into consideration by the devs, since you aren't saying why you like it, the devs can't be sure you'll like their version of it. So that vote of confidence in the idea doesn't help them much. Telling them *why* you like it is a lot more helpful: its something they can factor into any attempt to implement the idea, or for that matter other ideas that aren't even related to it they might be working on.
I doubt seriously that /signed will get you banned (I know its technically prohibited). But the community reps are actively trying to discourage such posts in general. I also think that contrary to some earlier discussion, there is a significant difference between "/signed" and "I like it for the same reasons poster X likes it." Both look repetitive, but one of them delivers a lot more information to the devs than the other. I suspect that "I think this idea would improve my game play for all the reasons the previous poster mentioned" is going to be tolerated a lot more than "/signed."
Of course, it would be nice if you actually meant it, and weren't just trying to cut and paste a reply. If you agree with five of the reasons the previous poster mentioned, but not the other two, you should say so rather than just attempting blanket agreement. That's probably what the devs most want to hear.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Your forum rules make it illegitimate for a user to repost a technical solution received from support. Disallowing /signed is lame, as there are legitimate reasons to simply say "I agree" that aren't bumping.
QUESTION!!! (what? i have a question...)
Do these revised rules mean that there won't be any more of those posts where someone just quotes someone else's quotes and adds (ONLY) the word "this"?
Isn't it like bumping? or like saying "/signed"? isn't it unconstructive?
I feel that this should be made a little clearer... Are we allowed to do it?
I think the enforcement of "Not Safe For Work" (ie: nudity) artwork in the art forums is too lax.
There have been, and are threads where the purpose is to figure out how to sneakily link to NSFW images somehow under the Mod's radar - often by merely stating "It'll get modded if I put a link - but if you go to the DeviantArt link in my sig and then check my Blog - you might find something naughty"
Its widely discussed there that its the accepted method to skirt the rules and still have character art porn.
The forums are supposed to be all ages for an all ages game - that sort of thing really doesn't belong here, on these boards.
Yet it still gets by the Mods.
[ QUOTE ]
Your forum rules make it illegitimate for a user to repost a technical solution received from support. Disallowing /signed is lame, as there are legitimate reasons to simply say "I agree" that aren't bumping.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. You could safely relay all the pertinent information regarding a technical solution without revealing any private communication that would otherwise be unsuitable to share in public. That's what's prohibited, private communications between the GMs/moderators and individual players. It really doesn't apply to technical support.
And com'n, the rules are *guidelines*. Of course they're not going to mod smack you for reposting support information. This is just common sense. We're not talking about the US Constitution here, it's merely forum guidelines. Follow the "spirit" of the rules and you'll be just fine.
And Arcana said it better than I ever could, but posting /signed doesn't offer any significant contribution to a discussion. Forumites are a very small % of the overall playerbase and the devs really don't need 20 people out of 200,000 to say "I agree" without adding any additional information. All it does is clog up the forums.
[ QUOTE ]
QUESTION!!! (what? i have a question...)
Do these revised rules mean that there won't be any more of those posts where someone just quotes someone else's quotes and adds (ONLY) the word "this"?
Isn't it like bumping? or like saying "/signed"? isn't it unconstructive?
I feel that this should be made a little clearer... Are we allowed to do it?
[/ QUOTE ]
When in doubt, don't. If you think doing so is nothing more than saying "/signed" or "/QFT", then don't do it. Again, common sense.
If it's something you really want to post but are unsure, send a PM to one of the reps or mods and ask before you post.
[ QUOTE ]
(snip)
And just as a general FYI excessive use of the notify moderator button can get you in trouble as well. Even if it's reporting valid infractions of the forum rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
It can get you in trouble?
Is that your expereince or suspion?
~
Unrelated: I'm assuming posts that [u]just[u] say 'can i have your stuff', 'cry moar' and the like going to counted as non constructive?
I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.
Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.
So sad to be ending ):
[ QUOTE ]
...Many of these "naughty" things are THOROUGHLY entrenched in our American culture and come out as a reflex reaction more than a cognitive process.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, you may be sincere, but I consider that nothing but an excuse. This isn't the American Revolution, and the devs/mods aren't oppressing anyone, and we have no more rights here than the ones we got when we agreed to the EULA. They are a business and you can vote with your dollars - and your voice in actual public forums (physical and digital) - if you don't like how they run their ship.
If you can't keep track of that divide, you're just going to run afoul of the mods a lot.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA