The censoring

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > Why should they remain? Why should anyone make a negative comment towards someone else? Explain to me what name-calling and insulting adds *to the point of the forum, which is talking about **the game.***

>

> The tl;dr version is that if you keep playing with kid gloves, then the kid never grows up. The long version...

>

> After walking this Earth for decades, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that debate is useless. The reason for this is simple: it is rare for somebody to come to a wrong idea due to a lack of information, while also being willing to defend this idea adamantly. Usually, if somebody has a lack of information, they can see this deficiency and either seek more info, or bow out of discussions on the matter due to a lack of confidence behind their words. Even if they are so bold as to step forward and make a claim, a "debate" usually doesn't last longer than a few exchanges, because any reasonable person is capable of seeing their lack of knowledge on the issue.

>

> Then what causes all of these debates, you ask? Well, the answer is as simple as it is unfortunate: character flaw. They are _unreasonable_. Or as I like to say: I've never been in a protracted debate with somebody smarter than I am. Whether you want to quote God and say that mankind is sinful and has flawed reasoning, or Michael Shermer when he says that debate exists only to posture and establish dominance, the end conclusion is the same: people don't argue to uncover truth. People argue to fulfill a goal, created by the sum of their emotional baggage, personal deficiencies, and chips on their shoulder.

>

> Originally I had the strength to carry on endlessly, . But, with my pain growing and my health failing, I don't have the energy anymore to throw my wit down a bottomless pit. Any time I end up in verbal fisticuffs with somebody, after 2 exchanges I can see whether or not they're listening. Almost every time, they aren't listening. Instead, what is really going on is they have some sort of personal problem. They take issue with something I've said because it rubs their sore spots the wrong way, and they respond by engaging in an elaborate e-tantrum for an indefinite amount of time. In this time, they will commit all sorts of slights, dis-respects, manipulations, and lies, because their goal is not intellectual honesty or intellectual dignity. Their goal is to make other people act how they want, or feel bad for not doing so, and once they've said something their pride will never let them submit.

>

> Trying to stick to "the issues" does nothing to solve _their issues_. At a certain point (roughly 2 exchanges), the debate clearly stops being about the trivial game-related front, and becomes about what each other person is doing. Arguing itself is an action, taken against another person. If I am to tackle the issue directly and make actual progress, I am going to have to confront their actions and their motives. Doing so, however, _will say a litany of negative things about these people_, because it is these negative things that are the real problem to begin with.

>

> Harshness has a place. It is ultimately good for someone to have their sins called out, and their person to be meaningfully criticized. People learn from negative reinforcement, or at the very least they learn from aversion. If someone has their actions, motives, and honesty brought under scrutiny, they can reflect and learn from their mistakes, either to improve upon themselves or simply learn that their antics are not welcome anywhere in the grand width of the human community. Dancing around the problem with thousands of soft words has nary the impact of a truthful insult. It is a part of the journey to self-actualizing to learn that oneself is not only imperfect, but capable of grand evils at the slightest of causes. But somebody isn't going to learn this lesson, unless you take off the kid gloves.

 

After reading the entirety of the tl;dr, I came away with "I'll make 'em see things my way, no matter how many times I have to call them stupid to do it". Here's my question, what happens when you're the one that's wrong? Do you own it, or do you prefer to cover it up with insults? It's a fairly common tactic, especially on the internet, or the phone. In my own experience, name calling and general (edited for television) don't lead to productive discussion, they lead to protracted arguments that wind up with one side or the other getting their feelings hurt, and hitting the report button. I got a permanent forum ban for calling out a moderator's virtue signaling on another MMO forum. I'm not adverse to calling it how I see it, however, I don't see the need to go after the poster, if I can trash the position with facts. If the truth hurts their feelings, or their position, then any evaluation of why is up to them to discern, and it's not for me to point out. In fact, I've agreed not to do so, when I agreed to the tos for the forum, or the game.

 

This is not a venue where "but my Free Speech" applies. It is a private venue, with clear rules that we agree to follow when we sign up. That it was tl;dr is an excuse for violating it, but it's not a defense for the consequences of violating it. Maybe the 9th Circuit court may find "but my feelings were hurt because they moderated a comment I made that was in violation of their rules", maybe, but even they have had to come down on the side of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Neither is "but I'm right, and if I'm rude enough to them, they'll start to see it".

[Bloodstealer.5978]

Just a few days back I reported a well known 24/7 poster on this forum for attempting to insult another indirectly trying to invalidate the posters opinion stating it sounded like something any unprofessional blogger or forumite would write.. that was an indirect attack at the poster by this person.. but strangely enough that particular poster didn't see any moderation on the post, yet I would guarantee if that poster had commented the same thing back the other way.. the post would of been removed and he/she infracted and that's not the first time I have noticed this with certain posters.

I often feel there double standards applied to some who post here and a double standard to how moderation in general is handled.

By the way excellent post @Cyrin

[Merlin Dyfed Avalon.5046]

Let's just say there where some very very dedicated & overzealous moderators around.

 

New forum seems to me a lot less restrictive tbh.

 

[Oriens.5630]

I am afraid that what is _culturally_ at issue here is civil discourse. In NA at least this has historically been difficult, but in the past 3 decades there has been a serious erosion of what it means to communicate and to disagree in a public forum (public forums, not just internet forums).

 

Being sarcastic can be hilarious, it can even make a point, but not always, and not in such a manner that it really benefits the discussion as a whole. Because _communities_ discuss things, not individuals alone. If communities discuss things, then room must be made so that everyone in the community, as much as possible, can feel free to share in the discussion. Alot of times bluster is often just that, an attempt to dominate based on appearances rather than what actually lies at the core of the discussion. This means that discourse becomes increasingly delimited by who can reply with the fastest, wittiest, or, even sadly, hurtful remarks. Discussions like that are not the exchange or rational debate of ideas.

 

Does the truth 'hurt', at times it can. But as a member of community, as a person who values rational discourse, you would hopefully present the truth in a manner that the person it was directed at would hear the truth and not you. One of the goals of rational discourse is to remove oneself from the discussion. We are not here to lead everyone to the light, nor to ensure that the truth is heard in the most demeaning way possible. We're not even here to toughen people up for the real world. In a public forum involving civil discourse, we are here together to present ideas, opinions, facts, and when we actually can see it, even the truth.

 

However, we have to at least _attempt_ to keep the truth from being buried underneath our own passions and idiosyncrasies. It is much harder for anyone to hear the core of an argument when I am at the center of that argument. As mentioned above in other posts, the argument then becomes about me, not the facts, or logic, or truth.

[Odinens.5920]

@Gaile Gray - are you single?

 

 

 

lol just messin, of course

[Oriens.5630]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > Why should they remain? Why should anyone make a negative comment towards someone else? Explain to me what name-calling and insulting adds *to the point of the forum, which is talking about **the game.***

> >

> > The tl;dr version is that if you keep playing with kid gloves, then the kid never grows up. The long version...

> >

> > After walking this Earth for decades, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that debate is useless. The reason for this is simple: it is rare for somebody to come to a wrong idea due to a lack of information, while also being willing to defend this idea adamantly. Usually, if somebody has a lack of information, they can see this deficiency and either seek more info, or bow out of discussions on the matter due to a lack of confidence behind their words. Even if they are so bold as to step forward and make a claim, a "debate" usually doesn't last longer than a few exchanges, because any reasonable person is capable of seeing their lack of knowledge on the issue.

> >

> > Then what causes all of these debates, you ask? Well, the answer is as simple as it is unfortunate: character flaw. They are _unreasonable_. Or as I like to say: I've never been in a protracted debate with somebody smarter than I am. Whether you want to quote God and say that mankind is sinful and has flawed reasoning, or Michael Shermer when he says that debate exists only to posture and establish dominance, the end conclusion is the same: people don't argue to uncover truth. People argue to fulfill a goal, created by the sum of their emotional baggage, personal deficiencies, and chips on their shoulder.

> >

> > Originally I had the strength to carry on endlessly, . But, with my pain growing and my health failing, I don't have the energy anymore to throw my wit down a bottomless pit. Any time I end up in verbal fisticuffs with somebody, after 2 exchanges I can see whether or not they're listening. Almost every time, they aren't listening. Instead, what is really going on is they have some sort of personal problem. They take issue with something I've said because it rubs their sore spots the wrong way, and they respond by engaging in an elaborate e-tantrum for an indefinite amount of time. In this time, they will commit all sorts of slights, dis-respects, manipulations, and lies, because their goal is not intellectual honesty or intellectual dignity. Their goal is to make other people act how they want, or feel bad for not doing so, and once they've said something their pride will never let them submit.

> >

> > Trying to stick to "the issues" does nothing to solve _their issues_. At a certain point (roughly 2 exchanges), the debate clearly stops being about the trivial game-related front, and becomes about what each other person is doing. Arguing itself is an action, taken against another person. If I am to tackle the issue directly and make actual progress, I am going to have to confront their actions and their motives. Doing so, however, _will say a litany of negative things about these people_, because it is these negative things that are the real problem to begin with.

> >

> > Harshness has a place. It is ultimately good for someone to have their sins called out, and their person to be meaningfully criticized. People learn from negative reinforcement, or at the very least they learn from aversion. If someone has their actions, motives, and honesty brought under scrutiny, they can reflect and learn from their mistakes, either to improve upon themselves or simply learn that their antics are not welcome anywhere in the grand width of the human community. Dancing around the problem with thousands of soft words has nary the impact of a truthful insult. It is a part of the journey to self-actualizing to learn that oneself is not only imperfect, but capable of grand evils at the slightest of causes. But somebody isn't going to learn this lesson, unless you take off the kid gloves.

>

> After reading the entirety of the tl;dr, I came away with "I'll make 'em see things my way, no matter how many times I have to call them stupid to do it". Here's my question, what happens when you're the one that's wrong? Do you own it, or do you prefer to cover it up with insults? It's a fairly common tactic, especially on the internet, or the phone. In my own experience, name calling and general (edited for television) don't lead to productive discussion, they lead to protracted arguments that wind up with one side or the other getting their feelings hurt, and hitting the report button. I got a permanent forum ban for calling out a moderator's virtue signaling on another MMO forum. I'm not adverse to calling it how I see it, however, I don't see the need to go after the poster, if I can trash the position with facts. If the truth hurts their feelings, or their position, then any evaluation of why is up to them to discern, and it's not for me to point out. In fact, I've agreed not to do so, when I agreed to the tos for the forum, or the game.

>

> This is not a venue where "but my Free Speech" applies. It is a private venue, with clear rules that we agree to follow when we sign up. That it was tl;dr is an excuse for violating it, but it's not a defense for the consequences of violating it. Maybe the 9th Circuit court may find "but my feelings were hurt because they moderated a comment I made that was in violation of their rules", maybe, but even they have had to come down on the side of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Neither is "but I'm right, and if I'm rude enough to them, they'll start to see it".

 

This last bit that you mentioned is an issue that concerns me: Free Speech. In the United States, at least, the right to free speech has _never_ been understood, by the Founders, those elected officials who followed them, or the judicial system, to mean that a person can say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. The most famous quote concerning this was by a SCOTUS justice who stated that your right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There is speech that is protected and there is speech that is not protected. At some point people began to, wrongly, believe that the right to free speech was absolute, ie., that it covered all speech no matter the context.

 

Whether these forums are private or public, at least in the United States, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not guarantee anyone _absolute_ free speech.

[Crise.9401]

Now I don't usually do this... because I think questioning how company chooses to moderate community forums is not really productive use of anyone's time.

 

However, there was a topic titled "I don't like the Super Adventure Festival" (now the topic title was already moderated from "I think Super Adventure Box is garbage" earlier yesterday. But now said topic is gone and a notification of mine to it gives a permission denied error.

 

This wasn't even my topic, however, I think it was all things considered quite civil, so why should it be removed? Edit: nevermind it was merged to the other SAB topic, not that it makes much sense because said topics primarily express two very different and conflicting opinions. (and the title does not reflect the merger). Looks like only a few posts from that second thread may have been merged after all, if any.

[Itz Jay.8941]

It's actually hilarious. I've only been warned once, but it was on a post where someone had replied to me in an arrogant and sarcastic manner, I simply replied and said "you must be fun at parties" next thing I get a warning haha. I just found it hilarious because I've seen devs trying to be funny and being sarcastic, also seen devs say a lot worse than what I did too. At a certain point writing without characteristic words become empty and meaningless, like whats wrong with trying to have a laugh? Why so serious? I get it if your outright rude, but nothing wrong with a bit of friendly banter.

 

Then you have the PvP forums which no moderator will step foot inside btw, cause if they did there would be no PvP forums left, every PvP player would be banned from the forums and every dev would be banned from the forums too, yep there's some devs in there with some funny senses of humour. Every other post is some toxic whining nonsensical rubbish, half the people can't spell or use the correct grammar, and the rest can only reply with some sarcastic "l2p" sort of comments, it's just too funny.

[Ghos.1326]

In my opinion, In a debate, if someone presents information that either disputes or shuts down someone else's opinion (kindly, of course) and the person who presented their opinion responds rudely, they have no reason to be debating. There is a fine line in terms of expressing one's opinion, and enforcing their opinion onto others. A civil debate is welcomed, to me that is. But when someone immediately starts telling me "you don't know jack crap because you need to l2p, and I know because I play said profession so you're stupid, etc etc" I tend to try and tell them they need to calm down and that they're acting ignorant, because they are. But they never seem to get the hammer or warnings, as I still see them doing it to others. I believe that the original perpetrator needs to be punished.

 

Besides that, though, I like civil debates and intelligent arguments. They are a gateway to learning.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Oriens.5630" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > > Why should they remain? Why should anyone make a negative comment towards someone else? Explain to me what name-calling and insulting adds *to the point of the forum, which is talking about **the game.***

> > >

> > > The tl;dr version is that if you keep playing with kid gloves, then the kid never grows up. The long version...

> > >

> > > After walking this Earth for decades, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that debate is useless. The reason for this is simple: it is rare for somebody to come to a wrong idea due to a lack of information, while also being willing to defend this idea adamantly. Usually, if somebody has a lack of information, they can see this deficiency and either seek more info, or bow out of discussions on the matter due to a lack of confidence behind their words. Even if they are so bold as to step forward and make a claim, a "debate" usually doesn't last longer than a few exchanges, because any reasonable person is capable of seeing their lack of knowledge on the issue.

> > >

> > > Then what causes all of these debates, you ask? Well, the answer is as simple as it is unfortunate: character flaw. They are _unreasonable_. Or as I like to say: I've never been in a protracted debate with somebody smarter than I am. Whether you want to quote God and say that mankind is sinful and has flawed reasoning, or Michael Shermer when he says that debate exists only to posture and establish dominance, the end conclusion is the same: people don't argue to uncover truth. People argue to fulfill a goal, created by the sum of their emotional baggage, personal deficiencies, and chips on their shoulder.

> > >

> > > Originally I had the strength to carry on endlessly, . But, with my pain growing and my health failing, I don't have the energy anymore to throw my wit down a bottomless pit. Any time I end up in verbal fisticuffs with somebody, after 2 exchanges I can see whether or not they're listening. Almost every time, they aren't listening. Instead, what is really going on is they have some sort of personal problem. They take issue with something I've said because it rubs their sore spots the wrong way, and they respond by engaging in an elaborate e-tantrum for an indefinite amount of time. In this time, they will commit all sorts of slights, dis-respects, manipulations, and lies, because their goal is not intellectual honesty or intellectual dignity. Their goal is to make other people act how they want, or feel bad for not doing so, and once they've said something their pride will never let them submit.

> > >

> > > Trying to stick to "the issues" does nothing to solve _their issues_. At a certain point (roughly 2 exchanges), the debate clearly stops being about the trivial game-related front, and becomes about what each other person is doing. Arguing itself is an action, taken against another person. If I am to tackle the issue directly and make actual progress, I am going to have to confront their actions and their motives. Doing so, however, _will say a litany of negative things about these people_, because it is these negative things that are the real problem to begin with.

> > >

> > > Harshness has a place. It is ultimately good for someone to have their sins called out, and their person to be meaningfully criticized. People learn from negative reinforcement, or at the very least they learn from aversion. If someone has their actions, motives, and honesty brought under scrutiny, they can reflect and learn from their mistakes, either to improve upon themselves or simply learn that their antics are not welcome anywhere in the grand width of the human community. Dancing around the problem with thousands of soft words has nary the impact of a truthful insult. It is a part of the journey to self-actualizing to learn that oneself is not only imperfect, but capable of grand evils at the slightest of causes. But somebody isn't going to learn this lesson, unless you take off the kid gloves.

> >

> > After reading the entirety of the tl;dr, I came away with "I'll make 'em see things my way, no matter how many times I have to call them stupid to do it". Here's my question, what happens when you're the one that's wrong? Do you own it, or do you prefer to cover it up with insults? It's a fairly common tactic, especially on the internet, or the phone. In my own experience, name calling and general (edited for television) don't lead to productive discussion, they lead to protracted arguments that wind up with one side or the other getting their feelings hurt, and hitting the report button. I got a permanent forum ban for calling out a moderator's virtue signaling on another MMO forum. I'm not adverse to calling it how I see it, however, I don't see the need to go after the poster, if I can trash the position with facts. If the truth hurts their feelings, or their position, then any evaluation of why is up to them to discern, and it's not for me to point out. In fact, I've agreed not to do so, when I agreed to the tos for the forum, or the game.

> >

> > This is not a venue where "but my Free Speech" applies. It is a private venue, with clear rules that we agree to follow when we sign up. That it was tl;dr is an excuse for violating it, but it's not a defense for the consequences of violating it. Maybe the 9th Circuit court may find "but my feelings were hurt because they moderated a comment I made that was in violation of their rules", maybe, but even they have had to come down on the side of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Neither is "but I'm right, and if I'm rude enough to them, they'll start to see it".

>

> This last bit that you mentioned is an issue that concerns me: Free Speech. In the United States, at least, the right to free speech has _never_ been understood, by the Founders, those elected officials who followed them, or the judicial system, to mean that a person can say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. The most famous quote concerning this was by a SCOTUS justice who stated that your right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There is speech that is protected and there is speech that is not protected. At some point people began to, wrongly, believe that the right to free speech was absolute, ie., that it covered all speech no matter the context.

>

> Whether these forums are private or public, at least in the United States, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not guarantee anyone _absolute_ free speech.

 

It's actually pretty clear: If you're not inciting violence, or, as per your example yelling fire in a crowded theater, you're allowed to say whatever you like. The confusion comes in when one believes that freedom of expression/speech means freedom from consequences. It doesn't, and it never has, and it was never intended to. It does, however, mean that you're free to criticize the government, w/out fear, generally, of being incarcerated or worse, so long as you're not inciting violence. The main issue I see, and it's a lot, is people that think that free speech trumps a business owner's right to kick them out if they don't like what's being said, or how it's being said. As with forums, they are privately owned. You're free to write whatever you like, but if it violates the ToS, or CoC, then you're free to suffer those consequences, whether that be a board warning, or a ban. It's Free Speech, not a Free Pass.

[Devilman.1532]

> @"Alga.6498" said:

> The moderator team of this forum is probably the worse I've ever seen, if not **the** worst.

> Oh wait, now I will get an infraction for having an opinion! Ohhh wait again, somehow this is an insult, rude comment or worse!!!! infraction incoming for having an opinion! WAY to go MODs! :blush: :blush:

 

Bwahahahahahahahaahahahha........ there is just not enough burn cream for those burns... This thread is pure comedy gold. Thanks you guys for making a hung over morning at work on a Friday morning at least amusing. ;)

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"Oriens.5630" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > > Why should they remain? Why should anyone make a negative comment towards someone else? Explain to me what name-calling and insulting adds *to the point of the forum, which is talking about **the game.***

> > >

> > > The tl;dr version is that if you keep playing with kid gloves, then the kid never grows up. The long version...

> > >

> > > After walking this Earth for decades, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that debate is useless. The reason for this is simple: it is rare for somebody to come to a wrong idea due to a lack of information, while also being willing to defend this idea adamantly. Usually, if somebody has a lack of information, they can see this deficiency and either seek more info, or bow out of discussions on the matter due to a lack of confidence behind their words. Even if they are so bold as to step forward and make a claim, a "debate" usually doesn't last longer than a few exchanges, because any reasonable person is capable of seeing their lack of knowledge on the issue.

> > >

> > > Then what causes all of these debates, you ask? Well, the answer is as simple as it is unfortunate: character flaw. They are _unreasonable_. Or as I like to say: I've never been in a protracted debate with somebody smarter than I am. Whether you want to quote God and say that mankind is sinful and has flawed reasoning, or Michael Shermer when he says that debate exists only to posture and establish dominance, the end conclusion is the same: people don't argue to uncover truth. People argue to fulfill a goal, created by the sum of their emotional baggage, personal deficiencies, and chips on their shoulder.

> > >

> > > Originally I had the strength to carry on endlessly, . But, with my pain growing and my health failing, I don't have the energy anymore to throw my wit down a bottomless pit. Any time I end up in verbal fisticuffs with somebody, after 2 exchanges I can see whether or not they're listening. Almost every time, they aren't listening. Instead, what is really going on is they have some sort of personal problem. They take issue with something I've said because it rubs their sore spots the wrong way, and they respond by engaging in an elaborate e-tantrum for an indefinite amount of time. In this time, they will commit all sorts of slights, dis-respects, manipulations, and lies, because their goal is not intellectual honesty or intellectual dignity. Their goal is to make other people act how they want, or feel bad for not doing so, and once they've said something their pride will never let them submit.

> > >

> > > Trying to stick to "the issues" does nothing to solve _their issues_. At a certain point (roughly 2 exchanges), the debate clearly stops being about the trivial game-related front, and becomes about what each other person is doing. Arguing itself is an action, taken against another person. If I am to tackle the issue directly and make actual progress, I am going to have to confront their actions and their motives. Doing so, however, _will say a litany of negative things about these people_, because it is these negative things that are the real problem to begin with.

> > >

> > > Harshness has a place. It is ultimately good for someone to have their sins called out, and their person to be meaningfully criticized. People learn from negative reinforcement, or at the very least they learn from aversion. If someone has their actions, motives, and honesty brought under scrutiny, they can reflect and learn from their mistakes, either to improve upon themselves or simply learn that their antics are not welcome anywhere in the grand width of the human community. Dancing around the problem with thousands of soft words has nary the impact of a truthful insult. It is a part of the journey to self-actualizing to learn that oneself is not only imperfect, but capable of grand evils at the slightest of causes. But somebody isn't going to learn this lesson, unless you take off the kid gloves.

> >

> > After reading the entirety of the tl;dr, I came away with "I'll make 'em see things my way, no matter how many times I have to call them stupid to do it". Here's my question, what happens when you're the one that's wrong? Do you own it, or do you prefer to cover it up with insults? It's a fairly common tactic, especially on the internet, or the phone. In my own experience, name calling and general (edited for television) don't lead to productive discussion, they lead to protracted arguments that wind up with one side or the other getting their feelings hurt, and hitting the report button. I got a permanent forum ban for calling out a moderator's virtue signaling on another MMO forum. I'm not adverse to calling it how I see it, however, I don't see the need to go after the poster, if I can trash the position with facts. If the truth hurts their feelings, or their position, then any evaluation of why is up to them to discern, and it's not for me to point out. In fact, I've agreed not to do so, when I agreed to the tos for the forum, or the game.

> >

> > This is not a venue where "but my Free Speech" applies. It is a private venue, with clear rules that we agree to follow when we sign up. That it was tl;dr is an excuse for violating it, but it's not a defense for the consequences of violating it. Maybe the 9th Circuit court may find "but my feelings were hurt because they moderated a comment I made that was in violation of their rules", maybe, but even they have had to come down on the side of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Neither is "but I'm right, and if I'm rude enough to them, they'll start to see it".

>

> This last bit that you mentioned is an issue that concerns me: Free Speech. In the United States, at least, the right to free speech has _never_ been understood, by the Founders, those elected officials who followed them, or the judicial system, to mean that a person can say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. The most famous quote concerning this was by a SCOTUS justice who stated that your right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There is speech that is protected and there is speech that is not protected. At some point people began to, wrongly, believe that the right to free speech was absolute, ie., that it covered all speech no matter the context.

>

> Whether these forums are private or public, at least in the United States, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not guarantee anyone _absolute_ free speech.

 

What's really important to take away about this is that the right for a private company to censor their forums/speech platforms is in fact protected by their right to free speech. It is exorcising their freedom of speech in action for them to say "You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to say it here, because this kind of speech doesn't represent us and we don't want it tied to our platform."

[Devilman.1532]

"What's really important to take away about this is that the right for a private company to censor their forums/speech platforms is in fact protected by their right to free speech. It is exorcising their freedom of speech in action for them to say "You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to say it here, because this kind of speech doesn't represent us and we don't want it tied to our platform.""

 

This may indeed all be true but they are running a business and if their *customers* feel they are being treated in a draconian hamfisted manner communication. customer service wise, etc by representatives of said business they are also free to and likely will take their business elsewhere.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

Honestly I'm surprised at how many people get infracted. I consider myself harsh, and yet I only get a warning/infraction on very rare occasion.

 

> @"ratche.6204" said:

> Really? It's been my experience with internet discussions that they are over before they begin once one of the parties starts to get insulting. In many discussions I have never once seen a person change their mind when they were "called out" An adult discussion has occasionally ended in a change of heart by one of the parties but not the ones you describe. Trying to teach strangers lessons, or get them to be more introspective online won't work, it didn't work before the internet and it certainly doesn't work with the anonymity of the internet now.

>

> Now trying to teach people like you describe anything is a waste of time and energy.

>

> I believe George Carlin said it best “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

 

I must put emphasis on the "true" in true insult. If you just start flinging mud at the slightest of provocations, then yes nothing is ever going to get done. But, if there is a serious problem, and there is a serious offense committed, to tell it as is can do wonders. In fact, it is one of the few things I've seen to actually work. Reasonable people rarely get in to full blown arguments, and to that end I've seen water cooler talk be more productive than any fully orchestrated debate. It doesn't always work immediately, but it does take root.

 

By the time you get somebody brazenly defending a bad idea, the bad information is only the tip of an iceberg. First, they had to arrive to the conclusions that they did. This involves not just the information they have (because, to be frank, you can find anything you want on the internet), but also their personal motives and their worldview. People will believe what they want to, and because they _want_ to believe something it is a matter of their character. Second, they have to dismiss contradictory views and information, as well as the people that hold them. Third, they must take the stance that they will propagate and impose this idea with no provocation and without warning, and that they will defend this idea ceaselessly.

 

This itself takes a certain level of arrogance, as well as a controlling nature (and sadly, this is speaking from personal experience). But ultimately, this all manifests in one of two ways: selfishness, or righteousness. The sense of self is important in either case, whether it is desire or duty. But, both notions are dealt with in the same way: tearing down the self. Make aware the flaws in character, and you can discourage both the foundations for righteousness and the justification for selfishness. We do this, because even if sometimes it is a "waste of energy", ultimately it is sort of cruel to let somebody carry on as described above. Also, because bad ideas can ruin the game we're playing or the community we're playing with.

 

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> After reading the entirety of the tl;dr, I came away with "I'll make 'em see things my way, no matter how many times I have to call them stupid to do it". Here's my question, what happens when you're the one that's wrong? Do you own it, or do you prefer to cover it up with insults? It's a fairly common tactic, especially on the internet, or the phone. In my own experience, name calling and general (edited for television) don't lead to productive discussion, they lead to protracted arguments that wind up with one side or the other getting their feelings hurt, and hitting the report button. I got a permanent forum ban for calling out a moderator's virtue signaling on another MMO forum. I'm not adverse to calling it how I see it, however, I don't see the need to go after the poster, if I can trash the position with facts. If the truth hurts their feelings, or their position, then any evaluation of why is up to them to discern, and it's not for me to point out. In fact, I've agreed not to do so, when I agreed to the tos for the forum, or the game.

>

> This is not a venue where "but my Free Speech" applies. It is a private venue, with clear rules that we agree to follow when we sign up. That it was tl;dr is an excuse for violating it, but it's not a defense for the consequences of violating it. Maybe the 9th Circuit court may find "but my feelings were hurt because they moderated a comment I made that was in violation of their rules", maybe, but even they have had to come down on the side of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Neither is "but I'm right, and if I'm rude enough to them, they'll start to see it".

 

Let me ease your conscious a bit: You read wrong. That's not my point at all. My point is that when people argue, what they're arguing about often isn't the real issue. I grew up in a low income neighborhood; I've heard enough arguments about midlife crises and smothering paranoia manifest itself as "how loudly you carry the recyclables out to the curb". If you want another example, back in some old game forums, I've seen people get stalked and harassed on the forums. What would happen is, every time one particular person would say something, a particular different person would take issue and argue it down. No matter how benign the post was, this other person would come strolling about to mass-report their posts while declaring everything they've said evil and arguing endlessly on that point. It was all within the rules, of course, but it was plainly obvious that the second guy had an unhealthy obsession with tearing down the first guy, and was only arguing with him on every point to tarnish his image in the community. The actual content of the posts didn't matter much. Though I haven't seen it here, it is sad to say that forum stalking is a common practice in other places. This is a problem that will not solve itself, unless you address the actions directly.

 

I could pull up other examples on this forum where somebody is arguing something because of reasons not related to the actual subject, but that would break the naming and shaming rules. However I digress:

 

*If you are wrong, the proper thing to do is admit it. Personally I'm a bit more stubborn, since my breadth of reasoning is just strong enough to hold any position indefinitely, but in general I reflect on the debates after the fact and decide if I was in the right, or if I was right.

*I am not talking about "name calling". You can see the part where I respond to ratche for the full version, but the tl;dr is this: There's a difference between slander and a truthful insult.

*ratche is right when he says that a debate that devolves into name calling was over long before that point.

*I wish "trashing their position with facts" was actually a thing, but in my experience it doesn't work. There's a million ways to logically wind around a position, and the greater the wit the more capable someone is at defending a bad idea. Whomever wins in a debate is seldom whom is right.

 

As far as the free speech goes, it isn't just an American thing. It is a notion adopted by the U.N. itself, largely because the argument for it being an inalienable right is so strong. Fact is, nobody gives me the ability to speak, hold opinions, compare, criticize, condone, or condemn, let alone the ability to enforce this with all the energy one can muster. Nobody surgically implanted my larynx to give me the ability to speak. I have always had it. If you were to drop me on an uninhabited alien planet, I would still have these abilities, even with no government to give them to me. They cannot be taken away; they can only be discourage.

 

That said, I'm digressing again. My point isn't "muh free speech". It never was. I am saying that sometimes, you should say negative things about other people, because it is constructive and for the benefit of others to do so.

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I'd like to discuss those comments: What is your qualification as a teacher? Why is your right their wrong? And why do you feel a **game forum** is the proper place to have *anything* to say about someone's "person?"

>

> I would not want to be involved in a community that believed that a **game forum** was intended, or could be part of, someone's "aversion training" or a process of "negative reinforcement."

>

> Leave the moderation to the professionals who can and will objectively and fairly review content and then act with honest, positive intentions to respect all members and make decisions based on member expectations, the company's desires for our forum platform, and our community's greater good. To put it a different way, dn't poke yourself in the chest putting on some ill-thought badge of "Forum Policeman." Or if you want to do that, do it elsewhere. Because you couldn't be more wrong about what is "good for" our community or the people within it.

>

 

Nothing you are asking of me is pertinent. There is no qualification necessary as a teacher (although, ironically, I do have 3 years working for a state college), there is no set of "rights" that are being weighed against each other, and what I feel about the appropriateness of such content in the game forum is irrelevant. The fact is this: in any medium where you have people talking to each other, interpersonal problems are going to arise. Even in something as banal as a forum dedicated exclusively to a single video game, you are going to get the complex interpersonal dynamics that exist within society, all of which stem from the fundamental human condition. This includes arguments, animosity, and enemies. It's just going to happen.

 

That said, if you are demanding proof of the appropriateness of punishments (formerly "aversions", for I am no writer) and negative reinforcement, then all we have to do is look at the game itself. Guild Wars 2 has several forms of negative reinforcement built in. For example, the fact that you have to pay for living world story steps if you did not log in when they were released. This encourages people to log in regularly (and thus, create an "active community") to avoid having to deal with the negative consequences of a pay gate. It's a textbook example of negative reinforcement. Another example is ascended materials. The dusts, ore, and fragments needed to make ascended equipment accrue at a rate faster than you need, and yet material storage is incapable of holding a sufficient amount of these mats. In order to avoid having to deal with cumbersome inventory management, players are encouraged to max out a crafting discipline and spend silver on reagents to make bars, which can be stored easily. That, or buy account upgrades which increase the amount of storage. This is also true with bag space.

 

Punishments are everywhere as well. For one, you have the warning and infraction system, which is used to punish players by revoking their privileges and access to the game. These punishments are designed to create a maximum amount of aversion, existing both to discourage certain behaviors and also to minimize the presence of those who are not discouraged. Forum punishments can extend directly to in-game punishments. Really, the **the forum is already a place for "aversion training"**. It is enforced by both the moderation and the community itself. There are also problems with breaking in-game ToS. Failure in-game also results in equipment breaking, as well as long weight times for events to reoccur. In designing the Tequatl fight, somebody mentioned that the waypoints were spaced in such a way as to put a time punishment on players who died during the fight.

 

If you are demanding proof that negative reinforcement and punishments work... well then I question why they're in the game in the first place if you believe such. But I digress: It is sort of a well known fact. Discovered by B.F. Skinner, the infamous man himself. Finding a [source](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-negative-reinforcement-2795410 "https://verywellmind.com/what-is-negative-reinforcement-2795410") for this that doesn't just re-state Skinner's discoveries is quite difficult, and would involve me shelling out money to get access to periodicals just to debate someone online. Trust me when I say that it is a fundamental concept in behavioral science.

 

Company stock lines about moderation aside, this is not an issue about forum vigilantism. It is the real interactions between individuals, taking place on the forums. And maybe it is because I grew up in low-income neighborhoods, but my general stance (that I extend to everyone else) is that you don't get the po'po' involved unless it is a last resort. You shouldn't run to H.R., or the ethics committee, or the associate investigators, or the ministry of peace for every slight offense or microaggression. **As a matter of respect**, I attempt to hash out issues I have with other people, because it is both more effective on the long term, and causes significantly less damage than what the ministry of peace will cause. If I can use my special maturity powers to resolve an interpersonal issue without getting the other person suspended or infracted, then by golly I'm going to do it. The only time I'm going to report somebody is if their offense is particularly egregious, or the issue both cannot be resolved and the option of compromise via mutually ignoring each other is not a viable alternative.

 

To speak frankly and with sincerity is respect. It may not always be positive, but it is not malicious. I cannot fathom how a forum where people use their adult emotions to resolve issues without incident somehow isn't "good for" the forum.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"Itz Jay.8941" said:

> Then you have the PvP forums which no moderator will step foot inside btw, cause if they did there would be no PvP forums left, every PvP player would be banned from the forums and every dev would be banned from the forums too, yep there's some devs in there with some funny senses of humour. Every other post is some toxic whining nonsensical rubbish, half the people can't spell or use the correct grammar, and the rest can only reply with some sarcastic "l2p" sort of comments, it's just too funny.

 

It's a huge problem with anything related to raids or DPS meters too. The amount of unchecked venom that goes on is really disheartening, especially when the "git guds" have to stomp on about their "rights" in game or some offended party gets emotional instead of rational. If the forums moderated all of that, there would be dozens of players facing bans (and we'd get a little more pleasant). The general strategy seems to be •wait 4-7 pages for thread to devolve into insults •close thread, rather than enforcement against repeat offenders.

I apologize if that's inaccurate, but the trend certainly seems that way.

[ratche.6204]

> @"Devilman.1532" said:

 

> This may indeed all be true but they are running a business and if their *customers* feel they are being treated in a draconian hamfisted manner communication. customer service wise, etc by representatives of said business they are also free to and likely will take their business elsewhere.

 

 

Voting with your wallets, so to speak, is the most effective way to get your point across. But I'll honestly say I don't get it. I don't get the comparison of telling people not to be insulting to a "draconian hamfisted manner" It seems the perspective is a bit skewered.

 

I don't understand why anyone feels they can't express their points without resorting to insults, sarcasm, or other rude behavior. Or more importantly why they think it would make a difference to the person they are insulting. Lets be honest, despite what anyone has said, the only reason to insult someone is to make yourself feel better. No one in the history of mankind has ever said "well I totally disagreed with you until you started talking about my mom, now I see your point." People, and I'm not at all innocent of this, insult online so they can walk away thinking. "Yeah I showed them"

 

It's not like the rules are a secret. I don't go to McDonalds and complain when I can't order filet mingon . I don't come here and break the TOS. In both cases if you do, you know what's going to happen.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

@ Gaile

 

Sorry, but I have to agree with the OP and others of his ilk.

 

Before I go on, I have to say that this thread is very refreshing. I've started threads and have seen others that rationally criticized the moderators and their overzealous use of their powers only to have our threads removed. This is the first one I've seen, or at the least the first one I can remember in a super long time that is still alive and getting attention. Great.

 

The problem with many of your responses is that you are great at diplomacy. Unfortunately, most of us are not. We let emotion enter into the equation because we're passionate about our class, game mode, whatever, and if someone is making a statement contrary to our point of view, this passion is bound to come through. Unfortunately, this is often mis-interpreted as an attack on another person and will result in a removal. And perhaps they are attacking another, but present a rational argument backing them up. Doesn't matter. Removal. Here's how you stated the ideal statement should be:

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> If you are criticizing a position, an idea, a suggestion, or a complaint -- fine and well. But if you suggest that because you want to "call out BS when you see it" or because you believe your comments have merit and will help people, that you can make your comments *personal* -- as in someone needs to grow a thick skin and take whatever comments you care to make -- then I have to disagree. I'm not sure which you're saying, but feel strongly that we should talk to the topic and not about the person.

 

That's just not possible fore some folks or their state of mind at the time. Like I said, many of us just don't have the skills to phrase things properly. We might be angry, depressed, poorly educated, anti-social, autistic, immature, whatever our deficiency might be that keeps us from properly phrasing something as to not be insulting. Here's and example: "@playerx: you're being dumb and here's why: [proceeds to make super logical argument]." A post like that would be removed. And that's a shame because what they go on to say might be enlightening, educational, whatever. But because someones feelings might get hurt, might, we need to protect the special snowflake. This isn't a board room.

 

The other issue I have is that if we invoke certain peoples names, like MM, and reference actions that they did or statements they made in the past to support an argument, no matter how impersonal or non-attacking it is, we are removed. This is just pure sanitation of a subject.

 

There needs to be some leeway, some subjectivity. These forums seem very black and white with little grey. There needs to be more grey and allow some flexibility for human nature and lack of diplomatic skill.

 

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"ratche.6204" said:

> > @"Devilman.1532" said:

>

> > This may indeed all be true but they are running a business and if their *customers* feel they are being treated in a draconian hamfisted manner communication. customer service wise, etc by representatives of said business they are also free to and likely will take their business elsewhere.

>

>

> Voting with your wallets, so to speak, is the most effective way to get your point across.

 

Yes, but not entirely. If players move away to other games, Anet is going to see exactly that - player/money exodus. But that doesn't explain why players moved away. That's why healthy relations with customers and proper interaction via e.g. forums helps running the business and earn more money in result.

[EpicName.4523]

OP, your thread is very much on spot. I've been warned several times and even mentioning that fact in another post to prevent other players from doing the same mistake will get you more warnings.

 

Here is what I got from a moderator:

 

Forum Moderator.4372 March 19, 2018

Discussion of moderation and forum policies are not allowed on the forums, as outlined in the Forums Code of Conduct. Your post has been removed. If you have questions regarding our expectations for our official forums, or the way in which they are implemented or enforced, you may contact us at Forums@Arena.net.

 

My point? OP, your thread about censorship on the forums will get...censored. As will probably my post here.

 

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"EpicName.4523" said:

> My point? OP, your thread about censorship on the forums will get...censored. As will probably my post here.

>

 

You really should reconsider this statement. Gaile herself took part in this discussion, and she's uber-mod on forums. If she didn't want to discuss forum matters, she would have just closed this thread.

[Devilman.1532]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > My point? OP, your thread about censorship on the forums will get...censored. As will probably my post here.

> >

>

> You really should reconsider this statement. Gaile herself took part in this discussion, and she's uber-mod on forums. If she didn't want to discuss forum matters, she would have just closed this thread.

 

That in and of itself is a problem. Not discussing issues is a good way to never solving them. There absolutely should be the openness to discuss such things in a productive manner. Anet should WANT to engage with their customers and their concerns not shut them down and ignore them. After, they do want our money do they not? They want us to buy things in that IMO, detestable gem store (which I do buy things from because i like gambling with RNGesus yeah I also spend a lot of time at my local Casino MGM DC National Harbor), spend money on Living world episodes, Expansions etc. Why should anyone do that if they ask hard questions only for the door to be slammed shut in their faces? (as long as they as in a decent fashion of course)

 

[bLind.6278]

They're just doing their best to maintain the illusion that their playerbase is one of the nicest in MMO's. Dissent is strictly verboten.

 

The VAST majority of discussion on these forums aren't worth contributing to, for better or worse, because there's a fair chance that someone will get upset with what you say and you'll get warned/infracted/banned for questioning someones worldview.

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"bLind.6278" said:

> They're just doing their best to maintain the illusion that their playerbase is one of the nicest in MMO's. Dissent is strictly verboten.

>

> The VAST majority of discussion on these forums aren't worth contributing to, for better or worse, because there's a fair chance that someone will get upset with what you say and you'll get warned/infracted/banned for questioning someones worldview.

 

Agreed. It often feels like they're trying to turn these forums into a fairy wonderland with nothing but hugs around. I don't expect they'll ever reach that state - a barren wasteland seems much more likely.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

> @"Spurnshadow.3678" said:

 

> There needs to be some leeway, some subjectivity. These forums seem very black and white with little grey. There needs to be more grey and allow some flexibility for human nature and lack of diplomatic skill.

>

Are you suggesting that we set a standard -- "do not attack other members" -- but we give leeway because certain members clearly lack the skills to avoid attacks? Is that fair, reasonable, or even actionable? Let me joke a little here. Mod -- "FredPlayer.2134 is at it again." Me -- "Well, Fred is on our LSSL (Less Socially Skilled List) so he gets a pass." Or "Where everyone else would have the post removed, we'll leave it because Fred has a reputation for being rude. and our members simply learn to deal with it." :)

 

I think it's reasonable for a company to want to "set the tone" for healthy, active, and yes, even passionate discussions while at the same time prohibiting the use of hate speech and limiting the member exposure to hurtful comments, personal attacks, and direct insults. Appraising "hurtful" may be subjective, but the line ideally is drawn at the truly distasteful, not the mildly rude. I recognize that in our interest and our responsibility to try to maintain a place for relatively civil discussion, we (mods and I) sometimes err. I feel that's an inevitable outcome of human beings handling delicate social interactions, and while we strive for accuracy, as human beings we do sometimes fail. I sometimes err in not overturning a moderator decision, and that's regrettable, too. Hey, I probably err in overturning one that should have been upheld, but I don't think anyone's complaining about that. ;)

 

The important point is that we will engage in a conversation about the matter. Members active in this thread have attested to the fact that (1) we do overturn inaccurate decisions and (2) we will review everything with care. I'll add, and I bet others can back me up, that I will also apologize and confess when one of us has made an error. I don't think we can be much more transparent than that! (Gone are the days of the cut-and-paste responses that impersonally deem a review complete and an action upheld or reversed -- that's not happening at all any longer.)

 

I do want to stress, though, that a single point here and there has no impact whatsoever on someone's account, and it would be greatly appreciated to not have lengthy back and forth conversations about a single-point warning. I looked at someone's history last night, and there were a *lot* of tickets, and most of them were for entirely inconsequential matters that did not impact the account. I understand someone's desire to have a point removed, when they feel it's undeserved. But I also know that I should focus on the issues that do impact an account and there are only so many hours in a day.

 

One thing I want to add: **Reports do not result in instant and certain action.** The number of reports we receive is probably 2 to 3 times the number of actions that are taken. We're ever striving to not remove posts and not give points, rather than the opposite. It's not our desire to host a forum and then put such a stranglehold on conversation that no one can speak! (And please, arguments to confirm we do place that stranglehold simply are not accurate. Statements like "No one can post freely" are hyperbole, when we have thousands of posts a day.)

 

So one of your posts is removed, please don't think that you're a victim of someone successfully playing the report game. And please don't think that by reporting someone -- even repeatedly -- that we'll be required to take action, if no action is warranted.

 

Any questions or individual situation you'd like to discuss? You'll find me at Forums@Arena.Net.

 

[Lord Kreegan.8123]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Lord Kreegan.8123" said:

> > I make a "spoof post" where I used no curse words to invoke the filter or directed any negative comments at anyone, but typed in "kitten" and -- what should have also been the bald-faced and blatant give-away -- also typed in "puppy", "duckling", "piglet", "lamb", and "calf" as modifiers in sentences, alternating their use.

> > I got an infraction, three whole points...

>

> That post wasn't a spoof -- it reads very much like an attack, directed towards the developers, the company, and others who enjoy the game. You were unremittingly insulting in your comments. You could have said what you wanted to say without calling people "yahoos" and without trotting out the old saw that no one tested the game. Maybe you believe "It was a joke" covers a variety of ills, but the acceptance of your input is directly related to the acceptability of your comments.

>

It was absolutely a spoof... in a thread specific to commenting on problems in the game. Your thin skin doesn't change reality.

Insofar as testing goes, when your patches have patches that have patches that have patches, it is absolute proof that testing isn't occurring. When bugs that have previously been corrected show up again in the next patch, it is proof that configuration management isn't occurring.

Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm an old [retired] developer, lead, manager, and director and it's very apparent that there are significant problems in ANet's development processes.