RE: Increased Incendiary Behaviour on the Forums.

Unknown

I admire the thought process behind this thread, but honestly, there's a limit to how much a mod can do to make up for poor design decisions, which IMO are a primary factor in a lot of the forum rage. If people are having fun, they probably aren't going to the forums to vent. So as others have said, I think this might be more covering up the symptom than actually curing anything. Just my 2 cents.

Raffoon

theHappyDance wrote:

I admire the thought process behind this thread, but honestly, there's a limit to how much a mod can do to make up for poor design decisions, which IMO are a primary factor in a lot of the forum rage. If people are having fun, they probably aren't going to the forums to vent. So as others have said, I think this might be more covering up the symptom than actually curing anything. Just my 2 cents.

Yes, the tone of the posts is directly related to player opinions of the game. When things were favorable in the game, for example directly after DDQ was introduced, things were much more positive around here. Ever since the massive failure of changes that began with the 4Thor nerf, the tone quickly went downhill. Now to me, it's hard to even gauge a tone on the forums because it's been so dead for the last few weeks. I think that everyone basically shouted their lungs out against the changes, and then either left or gave up.

What lingers is a residual level of displeasure with the developers over unpopular changes that were never properly justified.

Unknown

I'm going to chime in in support of the two posts preceding mine, both of which I up-voted.

I would love to have someone with more time and inclination crunch the numbers in the forum for the purpose of highlighting how many "immunosuppressive" posts/behaviors directly correlate/coincide with similar "immunosuppressive" design choices, radio silences on things like outages and compensation, half-answers on issues that are pretty important to the player base, "hot" threads wherein we can actually see the red names lurking but choosing to not comment, the list goes on and on.

Are there some folks online who are acting out their real-life fantasies of power? Attempting to make up for some perceived or real deficits in real life attention and/or influence? Sure, but in my limited experience with this particular forum, the frustration, anger, and outbursts all tend to coalesce around some pretty obvious situations/events/design choices/non-responses coming from the dev side.

Not trying to be negative here, but when the obvious happens to be negative, well, yeah. That.

DBC

Arondite

Direct, or indirect, attacks on a person's opinion, character, or otherwise. An "attack" being defined as a post whom the main concern is to negatively combat a user, his opinion, or his ability to have an opinion. Example: "You don't shield hop, so you don't understand how Shield Cooldowns will affect the metagame."

I don't see how that's an attack rather than an evaluation. If you don't play Destiny, how can you decide how the change in special ammo drops in crucible will effect the value of exotic primary weapons?

If we're outlawing pretty much every form of debate, I guess I'm probably done coming here with any regularity.

GothicKratos

Arondite wrote:

Direct, or indirect, attacks on a person's opinion, character, or otherwise. An "attack" being defined as a post whom the main concern is to negatively combat a user, his opinion, or his ability to have an opinion. Example: "You don't shield hop, so you don't understand how Shield Cooldowns will affect the metagame."

I don't see how that's an attack rather than an evaluation. If you don't play Destiny, how can you decide how the change in special ammo drops in crucible will effect the value of exotic primary weapons?

If we're outlawing pretty much every form of debate, I guess I'm probably done coming here with any regularity.

Because the "metagame" isn't the only way that MPQ is played. That's not the same as 'never having played Destiny', your example would be more like someone complaining about the newest Raid, but not having the DLC (which contains said Raid).

People play this game differently, just because they don't play it the way you does, doesn't mean something they're disqualified from an opinion.

For example, in my example, someone may have the opinion that Shield Cooldowns were healthy for the game, because it removed a "pay to win factor" - whether that is 'true' or not isn't relevant - that's their opinion and they're allowed to have it and state it without being told "you have no idea what you're talking about".

Arondite

Your example says "you don't shield-hop...you don't understand the metagame."

Your post says this example is an attack. Given that you specifically said "the metagame" in your example, I would've assumed that the imaginary discussion in which that example takes place is about the metagame. If you're discussing the game in general, from bottom level to the top, of course anyone is free to throw their hat into the ring and say what they will. But if this imaginary discussion is ABOUT the metagame (as your example implies), is it really against the rules to say "you don't participate in the metagame, your comments on said metagame are going to be flawed and malformed"?

Because the "metagame" isn't the only way that MPQ is played. That's not the same as 'never having played Destiny', your example would be more like someone complaining about the newest Raid, but not having the DLC (which contains said Raid).

Uhh...someone complaining about a raid they can't play isn't any less stupid. That imaginary person is the sort of cancer that plagues our society and keeps our civil system from advancing the rights of huge portions of our society by expressing and enforcing their half-formed opinions based on little to no information.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

"you have no idea what you're talking about".

That's the most aggressive way possible to say that, so you're mixing examples (it's like saying "I'm not sure you're qualified to say that, assface"). Could one say "I mean, you seem to only have a lvl 1 moonstone in your roster, why are you discussing the intricacies of hopping over 1k points"? Because in my eyes that's kinda relevant.

If everyone is an authority, nobody is an authority.

GothicKratos

You're reading way too into this.

Look, I've said it quite a few times now that you're completely able to make points and counter-points and debate freely. You're not allowed to disqualify someone from speaking.

If the scenario that you've woven comes up and people are explicitly talking about, say, Shield Cooldowns in the metagame, and someone strolls in and starts talking about their implications in casual play....ignore them, report their post for being off-topic, etc. You don't have to make an example out of them. Be the bigger man.

However, the vast majority of conversations on the forums are open-ended, and there's no reason to dismiss someone else's ability to talk about something.

Arondite

I really think that's a poor way to run a discussion. A person's credentials do matter, whether we want everyone to feel important or not.

It might not seem like a big deal, but if two players are sitting in very different places roster-wise and/or where they place in each event, their insight is naturally going to prove more valuable at that level of play. A good degree of the traffic to this site is going to be learning players, inexperienced players and early-game players looking to grow. Everyone should have a right to say what they want to say, yes, but when someone says something we should also be able to critically evaluate it. So let's imagine 2 scenarios. In both scenarios, poster A is not very advanced in the game, but he's highly opinionated and a good speaker. Poster B is very advanced and has an excellent roster, as well as the gaming know-how to place in the top spot every event.

In scenario 1, we're in the candy-land of a forum that pampers everyone's emotions and we're all special snowflakes. Poster A and B have a discussion about using shields properly, and they're in a stark disagreement. Because of A's speaking ability, guess who the forum newcomers / unregistered browsers / random players are going to be inclined to believe has the better point? A, even though the information he bases this on is mostly either guessing or based on low-end play.

In scenario 2, we allow the use of each other's credentials in discussions when relevant. Poster A ad B are having the same debate as before, but this time poster B explains that he feels he knows the game a bit better thanks to his standing as opposed to poster a playing the game with Hulk Moonstone and Hawkeye. The newcomers see this and glean valuable information from player b's insight.

But hey, the mods say its candyland. Candyland it is.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

You'd be surprised who hangs out there....

Like me!

That's not how this works. Ban raisinbman and we'll talk

GothicKratos

ArkPrime wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

You'd be surprised who hangs out there....

Like me!

That's not how this works. Ban raisinbman and we'll talk

Can I ban both of your accounts too?

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

You'd be surprised who hangs out there....

Like me!

That's not how this works. Ban raisinbman and we'll talk

Can I ban both of your accounts too?

??????????????

Why am I in conversation

I haven't talked to Arkprime since I reported him and ignored him so I haven't interacted with him

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

You'd be surprised who hangs out there....

Like me!

That's not how this works. Ban raisinbman and we'll talk

Can I ban both of your accounts too?

That's not going to make me like you

kensterr

GothicKratos wrote:

People play this game differently, just because they don't play it the way you does, doesn't mean something they're disqualified from an opinion.

So what happens when someone plays differently and then gets constant harassment on LINE? Can we report that even though it's not in-game or in forum? Does it matter that those people who harass belong to a group where a forum mod is a member of? If the forum mod plays goody two shoes here but keeps quiet, or encourage thuggish behaviour on LINE, is the forum mod a good person or bad person?

Forum members mentioned that posts should be fairly PG-rated because children visit this forum. So that means children play the game as well. What if the person who gets bullied or harassed is a child? Will action be taken by the developers?

I can post all the screen shots here for your popcorn consuming pleasure.

Arondite

kensterr wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

People play this game differently, just because they don't play it the way you does, doesn't mean something they're disqualified from an opinion.

So what happens when someone plays differently and then gets constant harassment on LINE? Can we report that even though it's not in-game or in forum? Does it matter that those people who harass belong to a group where a forum mod is a member of? If the forum mod plays goody two shoes here but keeps quiet, or encourage thuggish behaviour on LINE, is the forum mod a good person or bad person?

Forum members mentioned that posts should be fairly PG-rated because children visit this forum. So that means children play the game as well. What if the person who gets bullied or harassed is a child? Will action be taken by the developers?

I can post all the screen shots here for your popcorn consuming pleasure.

LINE and this website are not affiliated with one another, and even if the person harassing you on LINE has the same username here as on LINE, there's no guarantee the two are the same people. There is no way a moderator on this site can or even should enforce anything that's happening anywhere else on the Internet, and it's almost hilarious you'd even suggest otherwise.

If you're legitimately being harassed on LINE, you should report them to LINE, not a completely unaffiliated and unrelated website. Of course, that's if you're legitimately being harassed. If you're presenting an idea in a Group chat and other users are rejecting said idea, that's not harassment at all and the folks who moderate LINE will, of course, ignore your request. If it's a legitimate request they'll take action against said user(s).

The mods here have their hands tied when it comes to LINE.

Dauthi

Arondite wrote:

Your example says "you don't shield-hop...you don't understand the metagame."

Your post says this example is an attack. Given that you specifically said "the metagame" in your example, I would've assumed that the imaginary discussion in which that example takes place is about the metagame. If you're discussing the game in general, from bottom level to the top, of course anyone is free to throw their hat into the ring and say what they will. But if this imaginary discussion is ABOUT the metagame (as your example implies), is it really against the rules to say "you don't participate in the metagame, your comments on said metagame are going to be flawed and malformed"?

You can't say that because it might not be true. That is an assumption, how well someone can predict/quantify a situation depends on the person. A person who has played the "metagame" might not be able to interpret changes to it as well as someone who hasn't but has read up about it. Just because someone has less experience doesn't mean they can't participate in a conversation.

A situation that is equal, is a person who has experience but is really bad at interpreting it to predicting/quantify towards that field. Even though their opinion is flawed, this person believes their opinion is better. This can lead everyone astray by ignoring other opinions that might have had truth to them. This is why everyone should be allowed to the conversation as equals.

You can note your credentials, but leave it to the reader to decide who should be listened to, don't assert who they should listen to.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

You can't say that because it might not be true. That is an assumption, how well someone can predict/quantify a situation depends on the person. A person who has played the "metagame" might not be able to interpret changes to it as well as someone who hasn't but has read up about it. Just because someone has less experience doesn't mean they can't participate in a conversation.

A situation that is equal, is a person who has experience but is really bad at interpreting it to predicting/quantify towards that field. Even though their opinion is flawed, this person believes their opinion is better. This can lead everyone astray by ignoring other opinions that might have had truth to them. This is why everyone should be allowed to the conversation as equals.

You can note your credentials, but leave it to the reader to decide who should be listened to, don't assert who they should listen to.

bravo, folks on this forum are too concerned with credentials, I bet they'd ask Batman for credentials before letting him save them

jimstarooney

raisinbman wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

You can't say that because it might not be true. That is an assumption, how well someone can predict/quantify a situation depends on the person. A person who has played the "metagame" might not be able to interpret changes to it as well as someone who hasn't but has read up about it. Just because someone has less experience doesn't mean they can't participate in a conversation.

A situation that is equal, is a person who has experience but is really bad at interpreting it to predicting/quantify towards that field. Even though their opinion is flawed, this person believes their opinion is better. This can lead everyone astray by ignoring other opinions that might have had truth to them. This is why everyone should be allowed to the conversation as equals.

You can note your credentials, but leave it to the reader to decide who should be listened to, don't assert who they should listen to.

bravo, folks on this forum are too concerned with credentials, I bet they'd ask Batman for credentials before letting him save them

You really cant help yourself, can you?

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

Direct, or indirect, attacks on a person's opinion, character, or otherwise. An "attack" being defined as a post whom the main concern is to negatively combat a user, his opinion, or his ability to have an opinion. Example: "You don't shield hop, so you don't understand how Shield Cooldowns will affect the metagame."

I don't see how that's an attack rather than an evaluation. If you don't play Destiny, how can you decide how the change in special ammo drops in crucible will effect the value of exotic primary weapons?

If we're outlawing pretty much every form of debate, I guess I'm probably done coming here with any regularity.

I think it's more the quality of the come back that's in question. If you say "you don't understand because of inexperience," that doesn't really change their argument. If you destroy their argument with chosen facts from experience it makes for a more compelling case. There are so many times when I feel the most appropriate response would be 'That's the dumbest non-argument I've ever heard," but sadly the forum terms don't allow for that.

Dauthi

daibar wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Direct, or indirect, attacks on a person's opinion, character, or otherwise. An "attack" being defined as a post whom the main concern is to negatively combat a user, his opinion, or his ability to have an opinion. Example: "You don't shield hop, so you don't understand how Shield Cooldowns will affect the metagame."

I don't see how that's an attack rather than an evaluation. If you don't play Destiny, how can you decide how the change in special ammo drops in crucible will effect the value of exotic primary weapons?

If we're outlawing pretty much every form of debate, I guess I'm probably done coming here with any regularity.

I think it's more the quality of the come back that's in question. If you say "you don't understand because of inexperience," that doesn't really change their argument. If you destroy their argument with chosen facts from experience it makes for a more compelling case. There are so many times when I feel the most appropriate response would be 'That's the dumbest non-argument I've ever heard," but sadly the forum terms don't allow for that.

Exactly. We are arguing Ad Hominem, which has been a falacy in literature/debates for a very long time. Debate the topic/argument, not the person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem