Same Rules Apply (Full Version)

All Forums >> [AE Forum Resources] >> Forum Support and Suggestions



Message

Voivod -> Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 21:26:01)

I want to make a suggestion. (And not trying to sound negative or hateful)

Can the mods on these forums be forced to follow the same rules as everyone else?


I have had several posts deleted over the months for "soap-boxing" but when a mod does the same, nobody can say anything or their posts get deleted, too. (Like mine did)

Then we are asked to use PM's as it's viewed as "trolling". And this is obviously so they can cover their own behinds.

Most everyone I think is tired of the double standard.








Kirrae -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 21:34:25)

I have to admit, moderators don't follow their own rules, as they expect us to admit when we are wrong, but they do not do the same. If a mod has been found to be out of line, with convincing evidence, they ought to admit it and try to correct the situation. Moderators should not be above the rules. There is no reason for this to be a Nixon situation where "anything's okay as long as the president does it." If it's against policy, it's against policy regardless of who does it.

People also shouldn't be penalized for speaking their minds. If they get aggressive and argumentative about it, that's one thing, but if someone talks about an issue they have, as long as it's discussed in the right place with respect and the desire for change, it should be allowed. In my humble opinion, at least.

-Kirrae



Voivod -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 21:38:31)

I believe if this thread was left open, many, many people would echo that sentiment.



Circe -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 21:48:52)

Staff are indeed required to follow the rules they enforce. While I can only speak for the staff I am responsible for, in general all staff are required to not only follow the rules, but exceed them. As forum staff, we set the standard for conduct on the boards. If you have a complaint, please follow the Chain of Command, as we take our responsibility to interact professionally with our customers very seriously.

That being said, let me touch briefly on the point you made, Voivod. "Soap-boxing" is when you orate on a topic in order to be persuasive. Synonyms include lecturing or pontificating. When you do it ad nauseum, without relenting, it indeed becomes trolling. There are members of forum staff whose job it is to "soap-box." The Knights of Order are responsible for the development and design of two games. When they speak in an official capacity, they do so without opinion or bias - they are the official word on these games. What they say/think/believe goes. Yes, they open it up for discussion, yes they provide places for players to offer opinions, but they are not bound to accept those opinions. They are game staff in every possible definition, and run the games they are responsible for as they see fit.

In this instance, you are not held to the same standards. Game staff (be it the Knights, geopetal, Reens or Warlic) speak about their games with the highest authority. Forum members do not. When you offer an opinion and they say "No, thank you," refusing to let it go is the very definition of trolling. The cliche of "beating a dead horse" is mildly distasteful, but accurate. The Knights do not have to open their decisions up for discussion - other games do not. The Knights of Order were born from the forums, so they appreciate and respect the opinions of their players but that doesn't mean they will take every suggestion and implement it. The ability to offer suggestions to game staff is a privilege, not a right, and if you abuse it by being overly argumentative, demanding or unrelenting, they are within their rights to end the discussion, remove posts or apply any punishments that may be deemed necessary.

If you have specific complaints about moderator behavior, feel free to submit that to me in private. In general, "everyone" is unaware that the double standard is slanted heavily in their favor. We give far more chances to people abusing staff than we do to people abusing other members. As an aside, that's a practice that will cease immediately.



Kirrae -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:14:11)


Circe, thank you for clearing that up. I do understand that you have no need to listen to our opinions, but I have seen that a forum member has expressed an opinion which has caused them to be put on probation or warned for it. I have also had the experience of game staff not only declining to listen to an opinion, which is their right, but to do so in an impolite way and threaten to warn that member if they continue. It is one thing to say that you do not approve of someone else's opinion, but another to threaten them for expressing it. Though, my opinion may be slanted being as I am in a different position and see the actions and words of mods in a different light than they were perhaps intended. The problem really could simply be a misunderstanding or a misreading of words.
With all due respect,
-Kirrae



Eladar -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:17:34)

KoO do not need to follow the rules. Thanks for pointing this out.

If we have a point and can demonstrate that it is correct, it doesn't matter if certain staff members disagree since their opinion is what matters. If we try to argue that we are correct, we are trying to be persuasive, which is not allowed.

Thanks for pointing me to this thread Voivod. Now I understand the philosophy of those who run the boards.

Thanks to you Circe for your honest response.



Circe -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:17:56)

Those are instances in which you should PM them to discuss it, respectfully, or PM their supervisor. For the KoO, that would be Kalanyr. For the moderating staff, that would be me.

Misunderstandings will always happen on the forums - text does not convey tone, so there's a measure of interpretation that goes into responding to a post. As we're human, occasionally we'll read it incorrectly. The way to handle it is to go to the person in question politely and ask for clarification or to explain your side better. We all have room to learn and grow here - it's when disrespect, harassment and trolling enter into the situation when we see problems.



Excuse me, Eladar, but you're reading your own opinions into my words. I didn't say the KoO don't need to follow the rules; they do. I said that you're assuming that part of the rules for them is to agree with every opinion expressed or take every suggestion offered. If a member of AE staff mistreats a forum member, you should report it. Full stop. But be sure your tone is better than the one above, because you could use more kindness for someone who has done nothing other than post in an attempt to allay concerns.

I'll also offer some advice: the old adage "clean your finger before you point at another's spots" applies here. I'd keep it in mind.



Eladar -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:23:35)

Circe,

When you define trying to defend what you are saying as trolling, you can't help but troll. If you try to defend your positiona and convince someone else that your point is valid, then by your definition, this is trolling.

Edit:

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood when you wrote:
quote:

That being said, let me touch briefly on the point you made, Voivod. "Soap-boxing" is when you orate on a topic in order to be persuasive. Synonyms include lecturing or pontificating. When you do it ad nauseum, without relenting, it indeed becomes trolling. There are members of forum staff whose job it is to "soap-box."



Yerameyahu -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:41:42)

Clearly, Eladar is right: if 'defending your opinion' is defined as trolling, then you can't defend your opinion without trolling. No one can argue with this.

Luckily, Eladar is also right in guessing that he misunderstood Circe. The condition behind the above logic is *not* true. No one has defined trolling in that way. On the contrary, you've been given a clear statement that I needn't quote, because it's right there: 'defending your opinion', like *any* communication, can become trolling. This happens in many ways: when you, as Circe said, do it ad nauseam, or, as Eladar has shown us, do it in an extremely sarcastic and disrespectful tone.



Kirrae -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:43:20)

Circe, again, thank you for the clarification. Though, I think there has been a slight misunderstanding on the topic of discussion. I don't necessarily believe that what Viovod and I were talking about was that the moderatiors and KoO were required to listen to our opinions, but rather that they should not necessarily penalize a member for expressing an opinion. At least, that was what I took from the post. However, if the point has been made and understood, and they continue along the same lines, I agree that it is trolling and should be stopped.

- Kirrae



zeke50100 -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:50:13)

I have a question: I've seen the KoO use sarcasm quite a bit to put down what others say. While sarcasm IS a method of basically bashing it into someone's head that something isn't right (whether it be what they say, some discussion of the game, or otherwise), I've also seen it enforced that sarcasm, often misinterpreted (thus leading to hurted members), was not to be used.

What, exactly, would be the line for the use of sarcasm?

~Zeke~



Aelthai -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:50:16)

I feel that I should mention that there have been a number of cases where we (meaning the Knights of Order) have changed our minds about something based upon feedback we have received from the forums.

Some times this is less quickly than others, since we often look at something, go "Hm", and think about it for a while, rather than making an immediate decision. This is one reason you will see something end up in game that was commented on quite a while back - well, that and it often takes a while for things to end up in game, we have a very large backlog. Another is that sometimes we've been thinking about it for a long time when someone else brings it up ... and it just takes that long to get far enough in the backlog :-p

So yes, we DO take suggestions, and we DO allow persuasive arguments to change our minds. Indeed, that's what the GBI forum is all about. This doesn't mean every argument wins; most arguments fail. It also doesn't mean that the argument should spread to threads other than its original thread, or become a case of repeating the same point over and over even though it as been stated to be nonpersuasive - those are cases where the issue arises.

In the case that I believe triggered this thread, Lord Barrius was asking for useful feedback on what could be improved in the game - repeatedly, yes, but repeatedly with a purpose that is absolutely in line with his job. He was being game staff asking for user feedback that he (or we, if you prefer) could turn into game improvements. The repetition was to attempt to steer the thread in a useful direction. I'm afraid that this is simply a different case from soap-boxing; he was being repetitive about asking for feedback, not about pushing an idea that had been turned down.



Kirrae -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 22:55:00)

Aelthai, if that is indeed the case, then I do not see why this post was made. Again, thank you for the clarification.

-Kirrae



Lord Barrius -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 23:12:01)

Since I presume this was a response to some of my recent posting, I suppose I'll repeat myself in some detail.

When that particular thread was first created, it was *the definition* of a rant thread. I'll remind you that rant threads, in general, are not permitted unless they are argued in a meaningful and civil manner. I debated the matter myself, and eventually decided to leave it open on the condition that people defended their points with reason and logic. For three pages, few bothered. It was mostly "X got nerfed and that sucks". No one explained why this was destroying the game or even offered feedback to us to help improve the game. This, by definition, violates the "no whining/ranting/etc threads" rule.

And yet despite this, I attempted to keep the thread going by asking people to think of real, solid issues. Not just to repeat how they hate it when <insert specific item> was nerfed, but to give us genuine useful feedback so that we, as staff, could improve the quality of the game.

I don't believe at any point in that thread did I say anything that was "out of line". I admittedly expressed a bit of frustration, but mostly because a topic which could have produced useful feedback was being turned into a "rant here" thread. And that's not helpful to us at all.

Your post was deleted because it essentially backtracked on what was starting to become a good line of discussion. After my last post (and before the deleted one), several users spoke up to offer good solid feedback to things we can fix and improve. Your post was, essentially, backtracking the thread back to the small bickering that was making it veer towards being locked. I asked for your post to be removed on that account, and would do so again. You were not helping the discussion with your post, and I think you and I both know that. You essentially brought the discussion right back to the verge of being locked, and that would be a serious shame, because I find it's important to get constructive feedback from our players.

I would much rather have players yelling at me for trying to keep that thread running and accept their feedback, than have to lock the thread and deny players that opportunity.



Kirrae -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/22/2009 23:46:19)

I think, in terms of feedback, it is hard to give good criticism if you've never seen it modeled. I've been in many writing classes where you rely on the criticism of fellow classmates and instructors to help you with your idea, but often times you get useless feedback from your peers and the only good feedback is from the instructor. Perhaps there ought to be some sort of form for how feedback ought to be given, forcing people to think before they post.
Something along the lines of
Problem:
Reason why it is a problem:
Possible solution:

or even
I liked how you did:
1.
2.
3.
If I were doing it I would have done:
1.
2.
3.

-Kirrae



Eladar -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 18:22:57)

LB,

Trying to discuss how the game works and how certain stats distributions are more efficient than others is by definition a rant thread? I'm surprised that such threads are considered bad, but I suppose I should be. Open discussions on how the game actually works are few and far between. It is as if any build questions should be directed to the guides and never questioned.



Traveler -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 18:31:31)

@Eladar:

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the thread LB is reffering to in his last post is not your thread about blocking and defense, but the one titled "Major let downs", in which he wrote asking for more constructive criticism -instead of what he considered mere ranting-, what was interpreted by some as a desire to eliminate criticism.



Everest -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 18:50:35)

Traveler is correct; the thread Lord Barrius refers to was not yours.

quote:

Open discussions on how the game actually works are few and far between.


Open, intelligent discussion of the game is always valuable and encouraged. Unfortunately, Eladar, the thread you speak of does not fit these criteria. When you refuse to listen to how your assumptions might need a bit of work, and instead keep posting the same incorrect assertions repetitively, it becomes a rather pointless thread, with no valuable discussion. I do not say this to offend, and I hope it is not taken this way.

Your analysis was incomplete, which is perfectly fine; everyone makes mistakes. However, when numerous members point out the mistakes made in an analysis, and no attempt is made to incorporate that constructive criticism, then the thread loses its reason for being.

I've engaged in many, many conversations and discussions about stat builds, in at least three different AQ forums, myself. Yet these discussions go nowhere when a member refuses to give any ground and actually engage in discussion.



Eladar -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 21:49:44)

Thanks traveler. Yes, I agree that one is a rant thread.



Voivod -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 22:06:41)

Hrm, I thought the title of the thread was called "Major Letdown" or something. A thread where people, as an individual, could simply talk about something about AQ that was to them, a major let down. It was simple, general discussion, and much of it was fairly light hearted and it was a bit of a ho-hum thread. No big deal. Most everyone posted something completely different from everyone else. (There was no collective debate or anything)

But it changed when staff intervened and tried to steer it differently, which I felt like changed the intent of the thread, really.

The thread went from light hearted to down-trodden and serious, and it should have never been that way.

Once the housing interest thing was mentioned, it became a debate about that, and I felt like there was a pointless post made with a "what if" motto that didn't really help out anything. I found it to be soap-boxing much like I have done and have been warned for in the past.


1. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the thread.
2. Staff tried to change it. (In a minute, the question of Why needs to be asked)
3. The thread started to turn for the worse as a result because
4. It became about one topic, and a rant that fed off it.

Once I saw the soap boxing (it will be called something else since a mod did it, or will be backed for the same reason)

I know I have had several posts deleted and told not to soap box. It prompted the question in my mind, why arn't the mods held to the same rules? (To which they're not, irregardless of what the first response says;actions speak louder than words; Hell, "higher standards" = Different Rules, as now has been stated. Okay, whatever.


But why would staff swoop down to a fairly light hearted thread and reign down with rays of fear amongst the posters?

I'd be willing to bet it's to create as little dissention as possible amonsgt the forum members, to the point of near-mind control.

Now, there was a post right after that, and the poster mentioned this, and that was abruptly deleted, too.

I'm sorry folks, but that's what many, many forumites think. But if we speak out, we get warned, banned, posts get editted or deleted altogether.

I'm not being critical as much as this all is simply an observation, but it's like we have that good 'ole boy network where if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Everyone covers everyone's butts.

And rule#24 of the Universal Rules/Guidelines gets abused to the 100th degree.



Quick Edit:

Here's excerpt from Everest's last post:

quote:

Open, intelligent discussion of the game is always valuable and encouraged.


And here's one from Circe's first response:

quote:

The Knights of Order are responsible for the development and design of two games. When they speak in an official capacity, they do so without opinion or bias - they are the official word on these games. What they say/think/believe goes.



Both of these are actually true. But they do not mix. Players are force-fed "that's the way it is" scenarios. But the KoO have been shown to be wrong on certain things. When Nerfkitten came out, some players argued that it was severely overpowered, and yet it was claimed that it was the most balanced pet (or was it item?) in the game. Now, it's likely the considered the most overpowered item considering it *completely replaces dexterity and then some*.

The point isn't to point out that AQ staff make mistakes. They're human, and Aelthai made that assertion already.

But when they've been proven wrong before, and we can't debate it without fear of a locked topic, being warned for a variety of things, or banned altogether, both of those points in quotes become true *and* effervescently convoluted.




Everest -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 23:17:15)

quote:

Both of these are actually true. But they do not mix. Players are force-fed "that's the way it is" scenarios.


I would have to disagree with this statement. Players are never "force-fed" unless the situation goes way over the line. In fact, as Aelthai said earlier in this thread, the entire Game Balance Issues forum exists for open and intelligent discussion. And I tell you quite truthfully, the threads in GBI are considered very carefully. If you look at recent Miss Fixit changes, you'll find several changes have been made on the basis of GBI threads, such as the Gumn series of spells being buffed. I myself have, in the past few days, tried to confirm multiple bugs and possible monster overpoweredness brought up by members frequenting that forum. If what the KoO says goes without any desire to hear opinions of others, would they leave the threads open? Only rarely are threads in that forum locked, and locking only occurs when the thread has veered incredibly off the original topic or as a final resort if the players refuse to understand the issue.

quote:

But why would staff swoop down to a fairly light hearted thread and reign down with rays of fear amongst the posters?


The game staff were actually trying to help you, the players. If these concerns were constructive, some of the problems could be fixed and the game made more enjoyable, based on your own concerns and feedback. It was not to cause fear in the forum members. The staff takes concerns of the playerbase very seriously, which is why you see such staff attentiveness whenever a thread like that pops up. If the idea behind this staff attentiveness were to prevent any dissent, the thread wouldn't have remained open.

quote:

But if we speak out, we get warned, banned, posts get editted or deleted altogether.


Finally, Voivod, this thread is still open, despite several instances of flaming of the staff, because we want to hear your concerns. I believe this thread to be constructive; so speaking for myself, I am happy to help address the concerns here. The difference between this thread and many complaints, however, is that some complaints are not constructive in any way. If we can use member criticism, player concerns are much more useful.



zeke50100 -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/23/2009 23:34:53)

I posted a question earlier, but it either hasn't been seen due to terrible timing, or no one knows :/

quote:

I have a question: I've seen the KoO use sarcasm quite a bit to put down what others say. While sarcasm IS a method of basically bashing it into someone's head that something isn't right (whether it be what they say, some discussion of the game, or otherwise), I've also seen it enforced that sarcasm, often misinterpreted (thus leading to hurted members), was not to be used.

What, exactly, would be the line for the use of sarcasm?


Could someone answer this? It's a line that I don't want to find myself crossing, quite frankly.

~Zeke~



Lord Barrius -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/24/2009 15:43:59)

In reply to Voivod:

Your assertions are incorrect. The tone of the thread was not "light-hearted"....it was 100% certifiably a rant thread. Multiple first-page-posts are ranting about a nerf to X or Y....they aren't light-hearted in tone, and they aren't constructive. In no way was the thread's original purpose constructive criticism, which means that it should have been locked/deleted on sight. Instead, I have tried to steer it towards being useful instead of locking it outright because getting constructive feedback is important to us. That's why the thread is STILL open now. I think, though, that I'm going to divert it into a new thread (since, as you said, it has gotten derailed quite a bit, but I still want that feedback).

I think the rest of your assertions border on the absurd, to be honest....I've never told players what to think, much less "mind-controlled" them. I present what I think, why I think that, and let people decide for themselves what to do. As for this assertion that "many, many forumites think this"....I've gotta be honest, I don't believe you. Most forumites on this forum have clean records, are positive/upbeat, and contribute genuine discussion and constructive criticism. The number of people who think that they can't speak out for fear of being banned just for having an opinion number significantly less, but are significantly more vocal....this is probably why you think they are a majority when they really are not.



In reply to zeke50100:

I'll repeat what I say to everyone who has brought up such things before....complaints about specific individuals should be brought to their attention in PM. If that does not resolve the issue, then you work your way up the chain of command. Flaming someone for flaming you is never the answer, and more often than not, you'll be the one who gets caught first. It's better if you just do as asked, and proceed up the chain of command. Complaints received in that fashion tend to get responses quickly. Complaints received from members who flame don't tend to get such positive reactions.



Eladar -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/24/2009 16:43:39)

quote:

positive/upbeat, and contribute genuine discussion and constructive criticism.
Is positive and up beat one of the criteria to determine if a post is acceptable? If we are being honest and the concern is genuine, then is it still acceptable?

From my experience, the "up beat" is important if you don't want to end up on the wrong end of a mod's decision. But I don't think that one should have to be a yes person to have an honest discussion.



Everest -> RE: Same Rules Apply (11/24/2009 17:12:33)

A profound difference exists between genuine concern and criticism, and complaining, Eladar. Genuine concern would fall along the lines of expressing the issue as concerning, in a polite and constructive way, and trusting the staff to examine the problem and judge if something needs to be done. Complaining, on the other hand, is done despite staff addresses of the issue. The staff listen to everything members say, but ultimately they may not agree with the assertions made by the members. This goes back to what Circe was saying, that what the KoO have final say on an issue.

Only after this does criticism not become valuable. I would agree with you, Eladar, that you don't have to be a yes person to have an honest discussion. However, I would also add that there are many ways to address complaints in a constructive way, as many members have done in this forum, the General Discussion forums, or Game Balance Issues, to name a few. Mentioning over and over again that you dislike something, after the staff has addressed the issue, is not a constructive concern. New arguments will be listened to as closely as the original ones, but if it is the same repetitive complaints over and over, nothing can be accomplished by the posting of this.

quote:

When you offer an opinion and they say "No, thank you," refusing to let it go is the very definition of trolling.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
8.984375E-02