RE: Increased Incendiary Behaviour on the Forums.

Chirus

Is 'immunosuppressive' the correct term here? In health sciences, usually the term refers to the body's increased tolerance of harmful substances such as bacteria and viruses. So if we're increasing immunosuppressive behavior, it would follow that we would become more tolerant of inflammatory conduct in the forums, which the gist of the post seems to indicate otherwise.

Even if we're talking autoimmune disorders such as lupus, the body is still acting to protect itself, albeit in a faulty way. So 'immunosuppression' here would actually aim to limit the actions of forum moderators only who are well-meaning, but are unintentionally hurting members or even killing them for no particular reason at all. Perhaps a better term is 'Bolstering the immune response via troll antibiotics (trolomycin?)'

Actually, it'd probably be better to avoid any figure of speech and simply call it what it is: "Decreased tolerance of poor forum etiquette". No reason to fancy up something that should be fairly straightforward.

GothicKratos

@Chirus: How about incandescent?

===

ArkPrime wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

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

Like me!

That's not going to make me like you

I don't want you to like me, I was saying 'you'd be surprised who hangs out there....like me.'. Go fish!

GothicKratos

kensterr wrote:

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?

Unfortunately, we cannot officially do anything related to behaviour on other services (I will candidly admit I have used things said on Line to influence whether I, say, lock a thread, or not, but never for actual misconduct on Line). As Arondite pointed out, there's a lot of yellow tape there, and realistically, I have no authority there (nor do any of our mods, of course). The other thing is, ultimately, if we punish a user here, it might make their difficulties ever worse in other places, where we have no control over their behaviour. As someone that was bullied more than plenty throughout my life, I don't take that type of behaviour lightly, but you have to weight the reaction to your actions - I can at least help mitigate it here.

kensterr wrote:

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?

Define "take action". If you mean legal action, I couldn't really say for sure. I'm not speaking for the developers, but personally, I would not directly take action - that's the responsibility of their legal guardians - but I would of course participate in any way I could in an investigation. If you mean non-legally, I would treat it like any other user, and I would investigate and pursue it like it needed to be.

If you have specific concerns, please feel free to PM myself, or any green/red name.

Chirus

GothicKratos wrote:

@Chirus: How about incandescent?

Depends...will you be angry or glowing when you bring the hammer down?

GothicKratos

Chirus wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

@Chirus: How about incandescent?

Depends...will you be angry or glowing when you bring the hammer down?

Can I be both?

Unknown

hey gothic, i have a question about 'off-topic' posts, since you mentioned them as being penalty-worthy. cause what seems to me as some off-topic posts are usually the result of a lack of reading comprehension. either that or some people's thoughts are just so clouded by their own presuppositions and prejudices that this inhibits them from understanding clearly someone else's point. which leads to posts that are off topic and that come off as 'intentionally argumentative'. so at what point on a scale of idiocy do you start penalizing people? hehe i suppose the increased threat of penalties will force more people to actually think about what they're reading and to think before they write...my how this place has devolved into a police state. i cant remember who else has said it but we really need to stop fighting and bickering amongst one another as the real enemy is D3 lol. oh wait nvm. since the bickering is usually between those critical of d3 and the defenders of the powers that be. lol. perhaps...we all just need to find a common enemy to assemble together against. or..someone to avenge. tis a problem political philosophy has grappled with since time immemorial. can peace, which is unfortunately only ever a temporary peace, only be achieved by means of violence? which, if it were the case, would suggest that peace is only another means to war lol. alright i'm getting off topic now. i'll keep my musings to myself.

GothicKratos

@unco: Intent. It's generally clear what a person's intentions are, whether it be through previous actions or context. Furthermore, upon messaging the user, it should be relatively easy to gauge a user's intention and sincerity. By the time the second or third "incident" occurs, it should also be extra apparent.

I'll be honest with you, this whole "totalitarian state" thing is really hyperbolic (and borderline hilarious to me). If I wanted to be a dictator or something, I feel like I'd just start being a dictator - not give some long drawn out document that I explain out repeatedly. I don't think I'd be giving a grace period, nor warnings either. I'd just start applying warnings and banning individuals.

I don't want anyone to be in trouble. Banning people means less communication, so we have less of a community. It's counterproductive. If I was being frank, the list of people I feel like need to be banned is one person long and he's right on that line already (and it's probably not who you think). However, the list of people I feel are way too damn mean to other people is pretty long and I'm tired of them all butting heads with one another with no repercussions. Nobody else will take up the mantle of being the so called "bad guy", so I will. I don't mind.

Arondite

GothicKratos wrote:

If I was being frank, the list of people I feel like need to be banned is one person long and he's right on that line already (and it's probably not who you think).

I had no idea how much danger I was truly in.

GothicKratos

Arondite wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

If I was being frank, the list of people I feel like need to be banned is one person long and he's right on that line already (and it's probably not who you think).

I had no idea how much danger I was truly in.

They haven't posted in this thread and they're the only person I've PMed for 'official disciplinary action' since I posted this.

You're safe....for now.

Unknown

Is this about me spamming your inbox with goatse pics

Oldboy

GothicKratos wrote:

@Chirus: How about incandescent?

==='.

How about just plain "intolerant"?

A simple word.

(No not sarcasm. Just that you kept changing the word so i though i'd suggest one )

El Satanno

ArkPrime wrote:

Is this about me spamming your inbox with goatse pics

Now what reason would anyone have to be upset about such a thing?

Anyway, back on topic, it seems to me that the general undercurrent to the conversation is that GK has some diabolical plot (no pun intended) to turn this place into the No Fun Zone. I can say that I've been here long enough to see his posting and modding strategy, and it sure doesn't add up. It also seems to me that the "what ifs" being posted to continue the argument are not really vocalizing legitimate concerns, and more just trying to find holes to poke. If you really think GK is out to silence everyone, go back and have a read through his posting history. Better yet, restrict yourself to his mod posts. I think you'll find that the cause for alarm is really nonexistent. It's healthy to have a discussion about what is and isn't appropriate, but this conversation is starting to become a real waste of time and energy for everyone involved.

AXP_isme

I would go with "incitant", not that incandescent is without its charms.

Edited for grammar...

Unknown

AXP_isme wrote:

I would go with "incitant", not that incandescent is without its charms.

Edited for grammar...

I was thinking "infernal", "impudent", or "ignominious"(basically shameful) would work also.

AXP_isme

Equally it could be impertinent, improper or inglorious. Or, how about renaming it "Increased impolite invective incoming"?

This "dictionary" war is presumably the exact sort of thing that GK is trying to prevent. I must be cruising for a slap on the wrist.

GothicKratos

I am on a quest to prevent people from being butts. This amuses me.

Dauthi

GothicKratos wrote:

I am on a quest to prevent people from being butts. This amuses me.

Moon Roach

Immodest. Impotent. Imodium. Igneous.

For some ideas.

MisanOne

Immoral, Impudent, Infantile, Irreverent, Impertinent, Idiotic, Irresponsible; Take your pick they all work.

MikeG72

Impolite (oops.. already suggested). Impolitic.