Discussion: Forum Rules Revision
By
Absinth_Incubus,
Posted on: 2008-07-21 13:00 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as long as it is done constructively.
Again, as long as it is done in a constructive fashion it is fine, however the moment that attacks and insinuations begin to be made, they will be moderated out.
[/ QUOTE ]
But one issue is by what criteria and definition is such considered constructive. I question the legitimacy of this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, there are good and sound reasons for not having hard and fast well defined rules of what constitutes a constructive post etc. But as to why you don't have hard and fast written rules defining them. Simple to cut the rules lawyers off at the knees.
There is a category of poster who will try and define the rules exactly and get them in writing etc, then they will dance the line never crossing it but always pushing up to it and nudging it. By not making the rules hard and fast that negative and destructive behavior is discouraged. Instead the person dancing close to the edge can be mod smacked because while yes perhaps it was borderline it was the 5th, 10th, 20th, 100th time the moderator has had her/his attention called to that poster for exactly that behavior.
Another game and its company instituted something called a High Maintenance Policy to deal with this type. In that case if you keep coming to the GMs attention over and over never actually crossing the line but eating up lots of GM time to deal with the player and the aftermath the player can and will be banned including perma banned for continuing to push this.
In our case the moderators are simply keeping the flexability to slap down these types now.
And if you find that you are worried that the mods might smack you down for violating this then perhaps you need to stop and evaluate your posting pattern. Perhaps you are not being constructive to the community to a whole.
But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius
List of Invention Guides
Anyway, got the answer I wanted to see someone finally give.
The other issue brought up that I thought was crucial:
Is Pwnz going away or are these rules going to start applying to Pwnz? Leaving an area that only thrives as a breeding ground for the activities you prohibit seems rather against the whole idea of refreshing the rule set.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, got the answer I wanted to see someone finally give.
The other issue brought up that I thought was crucial:
Is Pwnz going away or are these rules going to start applying to Pwnz? Leaving an area that only thrives as a breeding ground for the activities you prohibit seems rather against the whole idea of refreshing the rule set.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually somewhere in this thread either Lighthouse or Koschej mentioned that Pwnz and forum games will be left to play so long as they don't violate rule 16. Those to forums are pretty much free to continue on their way with that one caviat.
But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius
List of Invention Guides
Edited by poster after realizing he had made a joke in a serious thread and referenced past moderation all at once.
*dodges the banst-... errr... edits the post pre-emptively* 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just rather curious if "true" obituary threads are permitted, and how one would tell the difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
<shrug> I've seen a couple true (as far a could be verified) obituary threads in the past.
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
[ QUOTE ]
Going back to the /signed issue.
I think in this case the question of "Are we going to heavily moderate this"
The answer, probably not. If all you can think of or feel adds to the discussion is /signed, then it will probably be allowed.
The issue is if someone goes around to every idea in a section or across the boards and /signed on all of them. The question then becomes is it a genuine agreement or an non-constructive thread bump.
If it's a genuine agreement, it doesn't detract from the thread there is a good chance we are going to leave it alone. But if it looks like the behavior is prevalent, we may take steps. It all comes down to the constructive nature.
[/ QUOTE ]
Might I suggest codifying (or clarifying) this in the rules, then? Because I can <cajun cook>Geh-rawn-tee</cajun cook> that someone's going to get a bug up their butt about someone saying "Signed" to something (or /disagree.)
It has, after all, happened before, to the point of irrationality. (And yes, led to going /jranger, the response created as a tongue-in-cheek "/no" for the sake of trying to lighten up a specific thread with some humor.)
Something like "While the occasional use of short responses such as /signed or /unsigned without further comment is understandable, the continual use of them as your only reply can become disruptive and can lead to moderator action."
Yes, the wording needs some work, but it leaves some "wiggle room" for those "I want to show support, but everythign I could say has been said already and better" times, while explaining that if it's taken to the point of being spamming it will be seen as and treated as being disruptive.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, as long as it is done in a constructive fashion it is fine, however the moment that attacks and insinuations begin to be made, they will be moderated out.
[/ QUOTE ]
But everything counts as insinuation or an attack if we even mention the community team.
So I ask you, please, tell us how we can actually discuss this stuff here without moderation.
Give an example if you have to, I am just not getting it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pause, take a deep breath. You are over analyzing things.
Really the way to think about it is this. If you are hesitant to post it because you are afraid you might get mod smacked then you probably shouldn't be posting what ever you are about to post. Really it is as simple as that.
If the discussion is straight forward and you are not being hostile or defensive in your posting there should be nothing to worry about.
And last there is no simple example that can be posted because the situation changes literally from post to post depending on what is happening. thus my comment about if you are hesitant about posting it you probably shouldn't. I usually stop and review my posts for tone or content first before posting and in a number of cases I've then not posted it because I realized it wasn't helping the discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am just trying to understand what crosses the line because even posts that aren't insulting or attacking the mods still get deleted.
If I say something like "I really wish Kos would stop posting in the warshade thread" is that ok?
What about "Ex is supporting *insert activity here* because she posted in X thread and that's wrong"
That was really my whole issue with the consistency thing. Even threads that I don't think twice about posting, because they seem perfectly fine to me, get modded.
I want these forums to get cleaned up. As stated by others, over the past couple of years things have declined around here. That's not an attack on the mods, that's an observation about the quality of the posts people are making. Myself included. I wish the entire For Fun section had never been created. I wish server forums still had to follow the rules of the rest of the forums. I wish things WERE a little more strict around here.
Is that ok for me to say?
[ QUOTE ]
I am just trying to understand what crosses the line because even posts that aren't insulting or attacking the mods still get deleted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually what causes that is the way posts chain in the forums. If I post something over the line then oh Zloth posts replying or quick replying off of my post then Pax, then smashmouth, and then you. That is a chain it gets broken anytime someone posts in reply to a post above mine. So what happens is my post was over the line and gets mod smacked. That also automatically removes Zloths, Pax's, Smashmouth's and your posts. Then you wonder what you did to get modded. But you where not the person modded.
The above scenario describes 90% of the missing posts that people wonder about. They think their innocent post is what got modded even though the mods never even touched it. Or didn't touch it directly. If you don't recieve a formal notice from a mod that your post was removed you were not directly modded but instead a collateral victim.
But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius
List of Invention Guides
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, there are good and sound reasons for not having hard and fast well defined rules of what constitutes a constructive post etc. But as to why you don't have hard and fast written rules defining them. Simple to cut the rules lawyers off at the knees.
There is a category of poster who will try and define the rules exactly and get them in writing etc, then they will dance the line never crossing it but always pushing up to it and nudging it. By not making the rules hard and fast that negative and destructive behavior is discouraged. Instead the person dancing close to the edge can be mod smacked because while yes perhaps it was borderline it was the 5th, 10th, 20th, 100th time the moderator has had her/his attention called to that poster for exactly that behavior.
Another game and its company instituted something called a High Maintenance Policy to deal with this type. In that case if you keep coming to the GMs attention over and over never actually crossing the line but eating up lots of GM time to deal with the player and the aftermath the player can and will be banned including perma banned for continuing to push this.
In our case the moderators are simply keeping the flexability to slap down these types now.
And if you find that you are worried that the mods might smack you down for violating this then perhaps you need to stop and evaluate your posting pattern. Perhaps you are not being constructive to the community to a whole.
[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that the statements made were vague and subjective.... leaving them up to potentially liberal interpretation or abuse. The control of the information and accountability isn't transparent.
-Storm Revenant-
Fires Within: Lvl 50 Fire/Kinetics Controller (Champion)
Steamed: Lvl 50 Thugs/Dark Miasma Mastermind (Freedom)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First this is great news.
The forums had become anarchic of late with the snowflake posts about nerfs and the lulzy trolling as well, glad to see the mod-nukes are being armed.
I do have one question though:
Whenver I report an exploit (and boy have I in the past two months) the canned response tells me to discuss the issue on the forums.
If I find X produces an insanely quick reward thanks to an exploit, do I continue using the Petition feature and alerting Posi/Castle or do I mention it here and risk the banstick and the collapse of the gaming infrastructure?
[/ QUOTE ]
In response to a previous post I want to say one thing.
Moderators will not ignore anyone on these forums, no matter their opinion of us. It is not professional, nor is it prudent given our job is to read people's posts, in case they contain rule breaking content, which we cannot see if the only thing there is **You are Ignoring this user* As for consistency, I will remind you once again that these are proprietary forums and we can allow or disallow any posts on these forums at our discretion. The other rules are the guidelines to be followed, the proprietary rule is the overall rule there.
As for exploit postings, if it is an actual exploit, come to the forums and message one of the Community team about it, and we will forward it on to the proper sources to get it taken care of. By placing it on the forums you put it in a place where people can see it, use it and possibly be caught using an exploit, etc. etc. before it gets fixed.
By letting us know however, you have a direct tap to get it taken care of.
[/ QUOTE ]
However the one I sent in as of 12/05/2007 which is a way of 100% guaranteeing a Pool B recipe drop is still in the game, as of the current build.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
I think the rules could be summarised by the phrase, "Play nice."
Seems fair to me.
K5K - The Killbot 5000
A Spanner In The Works Part One, ArcID: 336662, A Spanner In The Works Part Two, ArcID: 336665, Enter Japes, ArcID: 96001
In The Darkness Creeping, ArcID: 347709, When Dimensions Collide, ArcID: 412416.
Anyone knows where we can find the "I disagree" post Pax made that was like one mile long of PC red tape? I think that version of saying "No" will once again be required lol
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
I think the rules could be summarised by the phrase, "Play nice."
Seems fair to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Asking villains to play nice even on a message forum is an outrage imho.
What this board need is more emotions more blood and more chaos to be entertaining. Hey look at the TV stations, they learned that years ago 
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am just trying to understand what crosses the line because even posts that aren't insulting or attacking the mods still get deleted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually what causes that is the way posts chain in the forums. If I post something over the line then oh Zloth posts replying or quick replying off of my post then Pax, then smashmouth, and then you. That is a chain it gets broken anytime someone posts in reply to a post above mine. So what happens is my post was over the line and gets mod smacked. That also automatically removes Zloths, Pax's, Smashmouth's and your posts. Then you wonder what you did to get modded. But you where not the person modded.
The above scenario describes 90% of the missing posts that people wonder about. They think their innocent post is what got modded even though the mods never even touched it. Or didn't touch it directly. If you don't recieve a formal notice from a mod that your post was removed you were not directly modded but instead a collateral victim.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously I understand how the forums work.
This doesn't not apply when my posts are deleted by themselves, or the beginning of the chain.
That part is what needs clarification. It appears that any mentioning of the community team that isn't praising them will get deleted. Even if it's not attacking them in any way.
Lighthouse, Etc.,
[ QUOTE ]
10. Avoid using profanity.
Profanity in any form is discouraged. Using any means to bypass the profanity filter (for example: partial masking, such as asterisks or punctuation marks) is prohibited.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if it is OK to curse freely as long as make sure all our words ARE caught by the filter? I thought the filter was there so you didnt have to see certain stuff, but you can turn it off and see the stuff. Or, is the forum filter always present? Maybe I'm unfairly comparing it to the in-game filter. Is there no way to turn the forum filter off? I've never taken a hard look at my personal forum settings.
Lewis
Random AT Generation!
"I remember... the Alamo." -- Pee-wee Herman
"Oh don't worry. I always leave things to the last moment." -- The Doctor
"Telescopes are time machines." -- Carl Sagan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, got the answer I wanted to see someone finally give.
The other issue brought up that I thought was crucial:
Is Pwnz going away or are these rules going to start applying to Pwnz? Leaving an area that only thrives as a breeding ground for the activities you prohibit seems rather against the whole idea of refreshing the rule set.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually somewhere in this thread either Lighthouse or Koschej mentioned that Pwnz and forum games will be left to play so long as they don't violate rule 16. Those to forums are pretty much free to continue on their way with that one caviat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Keeping those areas as self-contained little sandboxes of ... whatever the hell they are ... also makes them easier to nuke from orbit should the need ever arise.
Positron: "There are no bugs [in City of Heroes], just varying degrees of features."
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't not apply when my posts are deleted by themselves, or the beginning of the chain.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you delete your own posts after they are part of a chain, you don't actually delete them. You leave an empty post that says "Post deleted by <yourname>." Any followups are left intact.
When the mods "hard" delete a post, it takes all threaded responses with it. Presumably the makers of the forum software offered this so you could kill any traces of something you want to make sure wasn't quoted downstream, along with any flaming that resulted. It makes sense to me, because the mods would want to do exactly that without having to spend time reading every threaded post decended from the one they want to kill.
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
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone knows where we can find the "I disagree" post Pax made that was like one mile long of PC red tape? I think that version of saying "No" will once again be required lol
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why anyone thinks this should be acceptable.
Do you really think that the correct distinction should be how many words you use to say "no"?
I think they've stated pretty clearly that simply saying "yes" or "no" isn't enough. They don't want people to post such things. They want people to post "yes, because..." and "no, because..."
A show of support or dissent isn't sufficient - they don't want people just showing support or dissent. They're saying the process isn't a vote or a poll.
You may not like that. It rankles me to an extent, but I recognize that as an irrational reaction because I want to feel that it's a democratic process. The reality is that it's not. If the devs want to poll for opinion, they actually have the tools to do that - they're called polls.
Using radically flowery verbiage to say nothing more than "yes" or "no" should be slapped just as hard as saying "yes" or "no". Especially when you consider that it's specifically a smart-alec attempt to skirt the rules and look cool doing it.
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
[ QUOTE ]
That part is what needs clarification. It appears that any mentioning of the community team that isn't praising them will get deleted. Even if it's not attacking them in any way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I think you're engaging in a large amount of hyperbole at the moment. There are multiple critical posts in this very thread of the new-old rules. They all still exist.
There's a very large difference between "I don't agree with you and here's why" and "I don't agree with you, you suck."
[ QUOTE ]
Using radically flowery verbiage to say nothing more than "yes" or "no" should be slapped just as hard as saying "yes" or "no". Especially when you consider that it's specifically a smart-alec attempt to skirt the rules and look cool doing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
To engage in some quality logical fallacies, this sets up a really questionable hill. When is someone being capricious and when are they being discussant? When are they offering these false, skirting words? That's where we trust that the moderator team will fill their roles appropriately. They have superiors to whom they must answer and it is not us.
In all frankness, I believe that if you cannot post more than a couple words than you have no business discussing on forums. These boards are meant to be bastions of discussion and idea exchange, not Online Petitions and 4chan express. We should aim for quality, not quantity. Even if you cannot find much to say, it is much more conductive to discourse if you say something other than "/signed". That tells us merely that you agree, nothing else.
I'd rather read a long post in reply which essentially said "I agree" than read 50 /signed posts. I get much more out of the long-winded, rambling nonsense that boils down to "I agree with you!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't not apply when my posts are deleted by themselves, or the beginning of the chain.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you delete your own posts after they are part of a chain, you don't actually delete them. You leave an empty post that says "Post deleted by <yourname>." Any followups are left intact.
When the mods "hard" delete a post, it takes all threaded responses with it. Presumably the makers of the forum software offered this so you could kill any traces of something you want to make sure wasn't quoted downstream, along with any flaming that resulted. It makes sense to me, because the mods would want to do exactly that without having to spend time reading every threaded post decended from the one they want to kill.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, please go back and read what I am saying. I know how the forums work. Once again, I am NOT talking about that.
I am trying to get clarification on what is ok to say and what is going to get deleted. If I made posts that fit into the discussion, and those posts were not flaming, attacking, insulting, or anything of that nature and they were deleted,and not part of a chain that was deleted, I want to know what crossed the line.
Actions against an account are cumulative. If my posts keep breaking the rules even though they seem to be perfectly acceptable according to those rules, I want to know why so I can fix it.
[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to get clarification on what is ok to say and what is going to get deleted. If I made posts that fit into the discussion, and those posts were not flaming, attacking, insulting, or anything of that nature and they were deleted,and not part of a chain that was deleted, I want to know what crossed the line.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I did misread your post.
I don't know what to tell you except that posts of mine that have been moderated in the last couple of months have always come with a PM from the moderators about what and why. Obviously I don't know if that's happening for everyone, but I certainly would agree that it should be.
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
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone knows where we can find the "I disagree" post Pax made that was like one mile long of PC red tape? I think that version of saying "No" will once again be required lol
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why anyone thinks this should be acceptable.
Do you really think that the correct distinction should be how many words you use to say "no"?
I think they've stated pretty clearly that simply saying "yes" or "no" isn't enough. They don't want people to post such things. They want people to post "yes, because..." and "no, because..."
A show of support or dissent isn't sufficient - they don't want people just showing support or dissent. They're saying the process isn't a vote or a poll.
You may not like that. It rankles me to an extent, but I recognize that as an irrational reaction because I want to feel that it's a democratic process. The reality is that it's not. If the devs want to poll for opinion, they actually have the tools to do that - they're called polls.
Using radically flowery verbiage to say nothing more than "yes" or "no" should be slapped just as hard as saying "yes" or "no". Especially when you consider that it's specifically a smart-alec attempt to skirt the rules and look cool doing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Does saying "No, because i said so." is good enough then? My parents used to say that all the time. So blame them for my bad habit.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I think you're engaging in a large amount of hyperbole at the moment. There are multiple critical posts in this very thread of the new-old rules. They all still exist.
There's a very large difference between "I don't agree with you and here's why" and "I don't agree with you, you suck."
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not. I know what I posted. I never said anything along the lines of the "you suck" comment.
If my post is deleted and not part of a chain, please don't bring that up again, but other similar posts are left untouched, I want to know why so I can fix it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to get clarification on what is ok to say and what is going to get deleted. If I made posts that fit into the discussion, and those posts were not flaming, attacking, insulting, or anything of that nature and they were deleted,and not part of a chain that was deleted, I want to know what crossed the line.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I did misread your post.
I don't know what to tell you except that posts of mine that have been moderated in the last couple of months have always come with a PM from the moderators about what and why. Obviously I don't know if that's happening for everyone, but I certainly would agree that it should be.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't. Getting any kind of response through PM from the Community Reps/Mods has been very difficult in most cases. Ex Libris being the exception recently.
Disclaimer: This only represents my recent experience and is in no way an attack on anyone who works for the company. There could be a number of reasons I do not get a response, up to and including the fact that I am a jerk and they don't want to deal with me. Which, given recent activity I have engaged in is a perfectly acceptable reason.
Kos did respond to me last night and tried to clarify. It didn't help much but that's more because of how the rules or set up and not due to his actions.
[ QUOTE ]
My impression is that the changes essentially are to limit the expressions of dissention and complaint of issues, attacks, or what have you. This is common on some forums but what does occur though is that you also gravitate towards a funneling of information that ammounts to affirmations of developers and community moderators and less of bringing real dialog and change when there are reasons of legitimacy there of.
There fore what is created is an effort to control and influence the information presented and discussed. Best intentions may or may not be the reasons for it but the end results almost invariably are always the same: disappointed on all sides.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I fear the "goose-steeping" has begun. <-----Going to get modded for that I'm sure. But I still wanted to say it. And in case anyone is wondering; yes I have poked a bee hive with a stick.