The censoring

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

>

> I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

 

On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

> >

> > I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

>

> On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

 

What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

> > >

> > > I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

> >

> > On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

>

> What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

 

Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

 

If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

>

> Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

 

And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

[Kolsyrad.2807]

I mean granted, I don't follow all of the shenanigans that happen on the forum.

And I do agree that people who are just being toxic and doing nothing but insult etc should be gotten rid of.

But from my pov at least as an outside perspective. It does seem to me as if Gaile at least is being overzealous.

 

I mean seriously? Calling someone '' condescending '' is not okay? What if they are? And tbh I'd perhaps even say that Gaile, you're being condescending from my pov.

As a non American at least which is sorta what I think that you're implying when you say '' global community '', I do find your views on what would include me to be rather condescending.

And whenever people speak of the '' global community '' it tbh funnily enough almost always ends up being a very strict version of being as inoffensive as possible from the pov of American sensabilities more than anyone elses.

Not to mention the whole deal with how '' swear words are not okay, because we're a global community ''. As if we don't curse ( including casually ) in other languages?

Why do you think that you can speak on behalf of the '' global community ''? What evidence do you have that we find swear words to be oh so '' offensive ''?

Tbh, I think that you're just projecting and using '' us '' as a shield.

 

Again, I speak from an outside perspective. And perhaps there's worse examples out there ( I am sure that there are ). But there's a difference between someone being genuinly toxic and someone expressing their opinion that someone is being condescending and using swear words.

Maybe I'll get banned or something, I dunno. I don't much care.

I just read what Gaile said and it did strike me as incredibly overzealous and quite condescending as someone part of this '' global community '' and whom isn't from the US which a lot is centered around.

 

With that said I am not someone who complains when someone who is being genuinly racist, sexist or whatever gets banned. I totally get that it's frustrating for a lot of devs/ community managers and such. Especially in games like Overwatch for instance, I get Blizzards frustration and I agree with them.

But I also agree with people who are afraid of moderators being too overzealous and just projecting their own opinions down everyone else's throats and policing things way too hard.

And I don't really approve of people proclaiming to speak on my behalf or anyone elses behalf in that regard which such confidence when it comes to what we do and don't find offensive or okay.

People do this with censorship in other regards, where content in games is censored with the justification of '' oh, we wanted it to be more appealing to a global audience '', which has essentially become a code word for '' the least interesting and least chance of ever possible offending anyone who is deliberately looking to be offended ( usually based on very old school American sensabilities too tbh ) ''. And the sales continously keep suffering as a result time and time again, but nothing is ever learned.

Has it ever occured to people that the '' global community '' is not as sensitive as some appear to think?

The internet and the way that we interact with each other ( for good and for worse ) is a result of global interactions and communication.

We're all organically shaping it together.

It may be centered in English, but people still use the language to express themselves as they would in their own.

There's a lot about the '' internet and gaming language '' that I don't like. And I do think that there's an issue with genuine racism and sexism ( against BOTH men and women ).

But at the same time I don't like this idea that the '' global community '' is a bunch of hardcore Catholic nuns either.

 

Once again, I am sure that there's plenty of stuff that the mods are justified in taking down. And that might very well have applied to the OP and a lot of the other people complaining, it probably did.

But at the same time reading what has been said here quite a lot of it does come across as overzealous and as pure projection of what I'd consider to be very overly sensitive standards being enforced.

[Kolsyrad.2807]

> @"Blanche Neige.7241" said:

> Moderators walk on a thin line.

>

> They are not strict enough : they get yelled at.

>

> They are too strict : they get yelled at.

>

> I don't think moderation here is better or worst than on other forums. And I'm sure most of them do their best, even if sometimes they do mistakes (they are humans too).

>

> And yes, I too got a couple of warnings (I don't recall why...)

>

> So, thank you mods for the job you do here. I know it's not an easy one. (and no, I have no connection to any mods of this forum or employees of Anet)

 

I agree with you.

But I think that the norm used to be to not be strict enough.

And now it has shifted to being too strict.

People in general just need to chill a bit.

And this goes beyond just forums too imo. Like with a lot of discussions about gaming and other media, or anything else for that matters it seems.

It's almost as if it just shifts between two sides of the extreme who in many cases seem to think the same thing only that one says it in a nicer and less aggressive way than the other.

There's a very obvious example that I could give but I don't want to get too political and derail the conversation. All that I'll say is that it has to do with views on nudity and sexuality.

 

As far as I am concerned, there's two '' sides ''.

One that is just looking to be as offensive as possible because they think that it's funny, and who quite frankly very often are genuinly sexist/ racist and whatever.

But then there's another side that is way too overly sensitive to the extent that they sometimes become benevolently racist and sexist, or at least are actually being quite offensive and condescending in a benevolent way and just projecting their own rather negative and offensive ideas and acting as if '' this is the objective truth/ reason why that everyone inherently agrees on ( even tho it's just their personal opinion/ interpretation ) ''. A lot of the so called '' critics '' in games are like that, altho it has begun to calm down a bit but there's still quite a lot of it with games journalists. They're essentially two sides of the same coin.

And then there's everyone else in the middle just wondering what the fuzz is about and begging them to just chill a bit and for people to not speak on their behalf.

 

I agree tho that it's hard to be a moderator and that there's no winning there.

I just kinda think that we need to hit the breaks and not go too far in the strict direction so that we don't completely drain all of the fun out of what is supposed to be a hobby for entertainment ( which in the end of the day is subjective, what you like I might dislike. And for many different reasons ). Which a lot of people seem to have forgotten nowadays it seems.

At the same time tho people shouldn't be allowed to actively harass others or be genuinly hateful.

 

To me it just boils down to '' don't be judgemental or a jerk ''.

And I quite frankly think that both '' sides '' fail in this regard. One tends to be more aggressive about it whilst the other tends to be less aggressive ( altho sometimes they still are ) and hide behind a nicer tone and friendlier words ( which can be even more infuriating and deceptive ).

And I don't consider using swear words or refering to someone as '' condescending '' when you think that it's precisely what they are being falls into that category.

Intent matters a great deal. There's a difference between using the '' F-word '' and throwing it in a persons direction followed by other words and with bad intent.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> So what is the word I would use for condescending? It is a common word to describe the feces of a male cow. I used it not to describe a person, but a persons post. How is that different from using a word like condescending?

 

What in the name of the Six? "Condescending" is **not** a "foul" word. It is in fact a highly literate word that describes the act of talking down to someone.

 

As for the topic per se: There are forums that are not properly moderated at all, like the Steam forums for instance. People can pretty much post whatever comes to their minds, no matter how rude or even racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory it is. They get downright personal and insult you in the most disgusting ways, and often get away with it. And don't get me started on how many profiles I have reported (lo and behold successfully, even though it takes them months before they act) that contained the most disgusting contents.

 

I rather have a sometimes too strict moderation than an environment where it feels like the majority of the community was raised in the gutter and lacks any empathy whatsoever. And while I might have had disagreements myself with mod decisions on here from time to time, in general I am glad that the mods keep an eye on everything and act fast. I am not a fan of the "anti-political correctness and total disrepect of others" attitude a certain president has made so popular lately, under the banner of "freedom of speech", because: your own freedom ends where it starts violating someone else's freedom, rights, and dignity. Mutual respect and consideration of feelings have sadly given way to rudeness and backwards-thinking, especially on the internet, and I don't believe that is a good approach for society regarding the future of how we deal with each other.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > > Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

> > > >

> > > > I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

> > >

> > > On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

> >

> > What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

>

> Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

>

> If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

>

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

> >

> > Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

>

> And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

>

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

 

There's a world of difference between "no purpose" and "no impact". A worthless feature can, indeed, have a ton of impact if it's abused, and this system, as I have already illustrated, can easily be abused. It's not going to do anything but give someone a "wild card" to try to shut someone else up with the line "you have x down votes, you should just shut up".

[Leo G.4501]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > > > Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

> > > >

> > > > On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

> > >

> > > What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

> >

> > Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

> >

> > If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

> >

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

> > > Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

> > >

> > > Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

> >

> > And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

> >

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

> > > Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

>

> There's a world of difference between "no purpose" and "no impact". A worthless feature can, indeed, have a ton of impact if it's abused, and this system, as I have already illustrated, can easily be abused. It's not going to do anything but give someone a "wild card" to try to shut someone else up with the line "you have x down votes, you should just shut up".

 

You can't shut someone up with that line.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > > > > Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

> > > >

> > > > What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

> > >

> > > Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

> > >

> > > If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

> > >

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

> > > > Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

> > > >

> > > > Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

> > >

> > > And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

> > >

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

> > > > Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

> >

> > There's a world of difference between "no purpose" and "no impact". A worthless feature can, indeed, have a ton of impact if it's abused, and this system, as I have already illustrated, can easily be abused. It's not going to do anything but give someone a "wild card" to try to shut someone else up with the line "you have x down votes, you should just shut up".

>

> You can't shut someone up with that line.

 

...and it's never stopped anyone from trying, has it? Adding the "ammunition" to a civil forum makes absolutely no sense, I'm surprised, quite frankly, that anywhere but fansites use it. Wait, is it used anywhere but on fansites? I know Turbine, now SSG disabled it, but that was nearly 10 years ago. So outside of reddit, where is it being used?

[Ashen.2907]

Any tool can be misused. Even the written word can be abused. This is no excuse for disallowing appropriate use of a tool. If it were then all commentary should be disallowed.

 

"You are disagreeing with someone who has a lot of up votes, you should shut up," for example would indicate that up votes should be disallowed.

 

"You are disagreeing with someone with whose past posts I have agreed, so you should shut up," would indicate that no one should be able to post more than once.

 

And so on.

 

The basic premise that if someone somewhere might abuse something it should be banned or removed from all use is disturbing.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > > > > > Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

> > > > >

> > > > > What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

> > > >

> > > > Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

> > > >

> > > > If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

> > > >

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

> > > > > Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

> > > > >

> > > > > Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

> > > >

> > > > And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

> > > >

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

> > > > > Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

> > >

> > > There's a world of difference between "no purpose" and "no impact". A worthless feature can, indeed, have a ton of impact if it's abused, and this system, as I have already illustrated, can easily be abused. It's not going to do anything but give someone a "wild card" to try to shut someone else up with the line "you have x down votes, you should just shut up".

> >

> > You can't shut someone up with that line.

>

> ...and it's never stopped anyone from trying, has it?

 

So?

[Zedek.8932]

I also had once a problem with a guy for some reason. I know his username, he had mad beef with me on the old boards for, again, no reason.

So while my post was infracted and warned (and removed), I contacted the support. And re-posted the exact same message because there was nothing wrong with it. I've been sarcastic - but not against a person, but about the subject itself. My re-posted totally indentical post suddenly was fine and acceptable.

 

Then there was the infraction for saying "Jesus Christ" and another infraction for asking more or less in a jokingly manner about a "hetero march" when there was a "LTGB march". Literally just asking where equality is when there is a homosexual's march ingame, but none for the heterosexual. That was more of a deeper question about equality than just blind "rampage". And, as posted, an empty infraction with no explanation why receiving one point, including this one. No reply from the official eMail adress I am supposed to contact of course.

 

Funny is also that I got infracted once for agreeing I deserved a certain infraction, but agreeing like @"Mewcifer.5198" did (post 3 in this thread) got me infracted, too, because I "was talkinga bout forum moderation". So, if Mewcifer is fine, why am I subject for infractions?

 

So 50% of my infractions do not make sense because I get hit by a placeholder/wildcard rule that basically ends up in "You accepted the ToS, so be quiet please" and it's like rolling dice if I am stepping on the infraction minefield or not. That is probably the biggest gripe I have with it...

[atheria.2837]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> Oh yes, downvotes and negative comments completely come with the job. Not a big deal, and I try to glean from it anything of value (and sometimes there is something of value) and let the rest go. :)

>

> [Funny, on that Reddit thread, someone felt so bad for all the downvotes (directed at "me" but not me) that they donated Reddit Gold in my name. That wasn't at all necessary, but it was a sweet gesture.]

>

> May I ask that if you're going to post about the downvote option, you please consider not creating a "put it back" poll? I feel that ship has sailed and we're not looking at reinstating it for any or all forums, particularly because I want to respect the team's input and not make a unilateral reversal of a decision that was accepted by everyone on the team. It's up to you how/what you post, but I wanted to share my perspective.

 

Censorship is alive and WELL at ArenaNet, and you know it Gaile.

[atheria.2837]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"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.

 

No, that's not true.

 

Many are censored but not for abuse or nastiness, but for telling a truth that doesn't want to be known here.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > So what is the word I would use for condescending? It is a common word to describe the feces of a male cow. I used it not to describe a person, but a persons post. How is that different from using a word like condescending?

>

> What in the name of the Six? "Condescending" is **not** a "foul" word. It is in fact a highly literate word that describes the act of talking down to someone.

>

> As for the topic per se: There are forums that are not properly moderated at all, like the Steam forums for instance. People can pretty much post whatever comes to their minds, no matter how rude or even racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory it is. They get downright personal and insult you in the most disgusting ways, and often get away with it. And don't get me started on how many profiles I have reported (lo and behold successfully, even though it takes them months before they act) that contained the most disgusting contents.

>

> I rather have a sometimes too strict moderation than an environment where it feels like the majority of the community was raised in the gutter and lacks any empathy whatsoever. And while I might have had disagreements myself with mod decisions on here from time to time, in general I am glad that the mods keep an eye on everything and act fast. I am not a fan of the "anti-political correctness and total disrepect of others" attitude a certain president has made so popular lately, under the banner of "freedom of speech", because: your own freedom ends where it starts violating someone else's freedom, rights, and dignity. Mutual respect and consideration of feelings have sadly given way to rudeness and backwards-thinking, especially on the internet, and I don't believe that is a good approach for society regarding the future of how we deal with each other.

 

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > So what is the word I would use for condescending? It is a common word to describe the feces of a male cow. I used it not to describe a person, but a persons post. How is that different from using a word like condescending?

>

> What in the name of the Six? "Condescending" is **not** a "foul" word. It is in fact a highly literate word that describes the act of talking down to someone.

>

> As for the topic per se: There are forums that are not properly moderated at all, like the Steam forums for instance. People can pretty much post whatever comes to their minds, no matter how rude or even racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory it is. They get downright personal and insult you in the most disgusting ways, and often get away with it. And don't get me started on how many profiles I have reported (lo and behold successfully, even though it takes them months before they act) that contained the most disgusting contents.

>

> I rather have a sometimes too strict moderation than an environment where it feels like the majority of the community was raised in the gutter and lacks any empathy whatsoever. And while I might have had disagreements myself with mod decisions on here from time to time, in general I am glad that the mods keep an eye on everything and act fast. I am not a fan of the "anti-political correctness and total disrepect of others" attitude a certain president has made so popular lately, under the banner of "freedom of speech", because: your own freedom ends where it starts violating someone else's freedom, rights, and dignity. Mutual respect and consideration of feelings have sadly given way to rudeness and backwards-thinking, especially on the internet, and I don't believe that is a good approach for society regarding the future of how we deal with each other.

 

One of the issues with fora is that people miss half of the discussion. I was referring to a post by Gaile ( the lead of the forum mod team) who said that using the sentence ‘you are condescending’ is foul. While saying, ‘your words are condescending’ is perfectly ok. In my native tongue, I am very literate, but in english aI am handicapped. Should I be treated less? What about those with english as a native tongue, but who are just not as literate? When you call a post bullshit (please mods see this in the light of the conversation) or when you call a post condescending, what is I’m effect the difference but the style of wording? People who use the word condescending aren’t maybe more literated, but does it make their post more then those who use the word bullshit? And maybe those who prefer the word condescending above bullshit are guilty of elitism (to whom I challenge to conversate with me in my native tongue to be really elitist). A word doesn’t killed. Calling someone condescending or bullshit is just wrong (I agree with Gaile here). While calling a post condescending or bullshit should be ok. We are talking with intentions, these intentions should matter, not the semantics.

[OrbitalButt.5708]

I got an infraction for quoting Shakespeare. SHAKESPEARE

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> Only time I ever had something I posted removed I kinda deserved it.

 

90% I deserve it too... The other 10% of the time is usually a misunderstanding or as Gaile said directly in Email to me... "not appropriate for the forums" which is fair enough too. I'm a fan of sexual innuendo's and sometimes forget that children use the forums too, not just adults.

 

So while there are times my comments can make the adults laugh, it does need to be moderated because there are children here too.


 

 

Edit: Question for Gaile..... If someone is being condescending and calling you garbage or trash, if you turn around and say you don't appreciate that condescending attitude, why would that person be infracted and not the one who is making a personal attack?

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> I also had once a problem with a guy for some reason. I know his username, he had mad beef with me on the old boards for, again, no reason.

> So while my post was infracted and warned (and removed), I contacted the support. And re-posted the exact same message because there was nothing wrong with it. I've been sarcastic - but not against a person, but about the subject itself. My re-posted totally indentical post suddenly was fine and acceptable.

>

> Then there was the infraction for saying "Jesus Christ" and another infraction for asking more or less in a jokingly manner about a "hetero march" when there was a "LTGB march". Literally just asking where equality is when there is a homosexual's march ingame, but none for the heterosexual. That was more of a deeper question about equality than just blind "rampage". And, as posted, an empty infraction with no explanation why receiving one point, including this one. No reply from the official eMail adress I am supposed to contact of course.

>

> Funny is also that I got infracted once for agreeing I deserved a certain infraction, but agreeing like @"Mewcifer.5198" did (post 3 in this thread) got me infracted, too, because I "was talkinga bout forum moderation". So, if Mewcifer is fine, why am I subject for infractions?

>

> So 50% of my infractions do not make sense because I get hit by a placeholder/wildcard rule that basically ends up in "You accepted the ToS, so be quiet please" and it's like rolling dice if I am stepping on the infraction minefield or not. That is probably the biggest gripe I have with it...

 

I think the difference would be how much detail you potentially gave.

 

Like saying "I got warned and deserved it" isn't the same as "I got warned for saying 'thing' and deserved it" or "I was sent 'message from moderator' but I deserved it"

Any sort of details involving what was said exactly in the post or the warning message would be seen as more infraction worthy. At least that is how I see it.

 

But, I don't know what was said and neither am I a forum moderator so I can't really say for sure.

[eduardo.1436]

I'm gonna jump in this wagon because I just got a warning level on a now deleted thread and for good reason. The OP posted something among the likes of "My friend told me girls are not allowed to join our guild because they suck at games in general" or something like that. For obvious reasons like 7 people commented saying things like "then your friend is wrong/that is not true/then he is not a friend." OP responded to some ppl (or more) with "nah I think my friend is right, I've seen it too/maybe you are the one who is wrong?"

 

OP is an obvious troll and I call him out and I get a flag? Why do we get flags for calling out people with inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't Anet just delete the thread and strike OP? Sure there might be other trolls there, but forum moderators apparently read threads, there's a difference between being disrespectful and calling someone out on their bad behavior. By the alchemy I didn't even said a "bad word" specifically mentioning that I would get a flag and called him like 2 toddler insult words. It is not fair in my opinion and don't know if I should type the words I used because I don't want another flag :(

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"eduardo.1436" said:

> I'm gonna jump in this wagon because I just got a warning level on a now deleted thread and for good reason. The OP posted something among the likes of "My friend told me girls are not allowed to join our guild because they suck at games in general" or something like that. For obvious reasons like 7 people commented saying things like "then your friend is wrong/that is not true/then he is not a friend." OP responded to some ppl (or more) with "nah I think my friend is right, I've seen it too/maybe you are the one who is wrong?"

>

> OP is an obvious troll and I call him out and I get a flag? Why do we get flags for calling out people with inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't Anet just delete the thread and strike OP? Sure there might be other trolls there, but forum moderators apparently read threads, there's a difference between being disrespectful and calling someone out on their bad behavior. By the alchemy I didn't even said a "bad word" specifically mentioning that I would get a flag and called him like 2 toddler insult words. It is not fair in my opinion and don't know if I should type the words I used because I don't want another flag :(

 

You get flags because they want people to report and not engage. When you engage you are fanning the flames. And often when you engage you end up saying things that are personal attacks as well, even if you feel the other person deserved it. Insulting other people, even trolls, is not allowed.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

 

> You could use the report system to ask a question, too. Maybe "Am I reading this wrong -- is that offensive?" or "Please check and see if these comments are acceptable according to forum rules."

 

I had no idea you could do that :astonished:

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> Edit: Question for Gaile..... If someone is being condescending and calling you garbage or trash, if you turn around and say you don't appreciate that condescending attitude, why would that person be infracted and not the one who is making a personal attack?

 

I had a similar situation. Someone posted a "thanks for listening to our desires" or some such and then someone replied with "a deaf person could listen better" or some such and I replied to that post with a simple thumbs down emoji and my post was deleted. Makes no sense but I frankly don't care all that much.

 

> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> > @"eduardo.1436" said:

> > I'm gonna jump in this wagon because I just got a warning level on a now deleted thread and for good reason. The OP posted something among the likes of "My friend told me girls are not allowed to join our guild because they suck at games in general" or something like that. For obvious reasons like 7 people commented saying things like "then your friend is wrong/that is not true/then he is not a friend." OP responded to some ppl (or more) with "nah I think my friend is right, I've seen it too/maybe you are the one who is wrong?"

> >

> > OP is an obvious troll and I call him out and I get a flag? Why do we get flags for calling out people with inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't Anet just delete the thread and strike OP? Sure there might be other trolls there, but forum moderators apparently read threads, there's a difference between being disrespectful and calling someone out on their bad behavior. By the alchemy I didn't even said a "bad word" specifically mentioning that I would get a flag and called him like 2 toddler insult words. It is not fair in my opinion and don't know if I should type the words I used because I don't want another flag :(

>

> You get flags because they want people to report and not engage. When you engage you are fanning the flames. And often when you engage you end up saying things that are personal attacks as well, even if you feel the other person deserved it. Insulting other people, even trolls, is not allowed.

 

It's pretty easy to avoid personal attacks when engaging with these individuals. What is the problem is the moment you press into any sort of confrontational discussion, it's the maturity level of the individuals involved that end up determining if a report is made or not.

 

I'm not going to report anyone unless they are blatantly breaking rules like posting links to erotic or scam sites or trying to sell stuff...you know, the not-legal stuff. I'm sure I'm not the only one who only reports incidents that break rules that they agree with.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > Edit: Question for Gaile..... If someone is being condescending and calling you garbage or trash, if you turn around and say you don't appreciate that condescending attitude, why would that person be infracted and not the one who is making a personal attack?

>

> I had a similar situation. Someone posted a "thanks for listening to our desires" or some such and then someone replied with "a deaf person could listen better" or some such and I replied to that post with a simple thumbs down emoji and my post was deleted. Makes no sense but I frankly don't care all that much.

>

> > @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> > > @"eduardo.1436" said:

> > > I'm gonna jump in this wagon because I just got a warning level on a now deleted thread and for good reason. The OP posted something among the likes of "My friend told me girls are not allowed to join our guild because they suck at games in general" or something like that. For obvious reasons like 7 people commented saying things like "then your friend is wrong/that is not true/then he is not a friend." OP responded to some ppl (or more) with "nah I think my friend is right, I've seen it too/maybe you are the one who is wrong?"

> > >

> > > OP is an obvious troll and I call him out and I get a flag? Why do we get flags for calling out people with inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't Anet just delete the thread and strike OP? Sure there might be other trolls there, but forum moderators apparently read threads, there's a difference between being disrespectful and calling someone out on their bad behavior. By the alchemy I didn't even said a "bad word" specifically mentioning that I would get a flag and called him like 2 toddler insult words. It is not fair in my opinion and don't know if I should type the words I used because I don't want another flag :(

> >

> > You get flags because they want people to report and not engage. When you engage you are fanning the flames. And often when you engage you end up saying things that are personal attacks as well, even if you feel the other person deserved it. Insulting other people, even trolls, is not allowed.

>

> It's pretty easy to avoid personal attacks when engaging with these individuals. What is the problem is the moment you press into any sort of confrontational discussion, it's the maturity level of the individuals involved that end up determining if a report is made or not.

>

> I'm not going to report anyone unless they are blatantly breaking rules like posting links to erotic or scam sites or trying to sell stuff...you know, the not-legal stuff. I'm sure I'm not the only one who only reports incidents that break rules that they agree with.

 

 

 

It's a very distasteful comment and your appropriate response has most likely hurt their ego so they decided to have your comment removed so theirs may stand.

My assumption is the moderators are up to their toes in reports and don't always have the time to check previous comments.

[Egorum.9506]

The moderation here has no interest in healthy discussion, even questioning anet's decisions is enough to have the post removed. What's more, certain mods will monitor your account and remove all posts for no good reason because it's a power trip.

 

And if you appeal it or try and report harassment by a forum mod, it has to go through that same forum mod via email so they can safely just ignore you. Reporting harassment by a forum mod is completely moot.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"eduardo.1436" said:

> I'm gonna jump in this wagon because I just got a warning level on a now deleted thread and for good reason. The OP posted something among the likes of "My friend told me girls are not allowed to join our guild because they suck at games in general" or something like that. For obvious reasons like 7 people commented saying things like "then your friend is wrong/that is not true/then he is not a friend." OP responded to some ppl (or more) with "nah I think my friend is right, I've seen it too/maybe you are the one who is wrong?"

>

> OP is an obvious troll and I call him out and I get a flag? Why do we get flags for calling out people with inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't Anet just delete the thread and strike OP? Sure there might be other trolls there, but forum moderators apparently read threads, there's a difference between being disrespectful and calling someone out on their bad behavior. By the alchemy I didn't even said a "bad word" specifically mentioning that I would get a flag and called him like 2 toddler insult words. It is not fair in my opinion and don't know if I should type the words I used because I don't want another flag :(

 

That’s the thing. Don’t post on threads that are obvious troll threads or if you do, post very carefully. Troll threads will be deleted and from personal experience I can tell you that infractions and warnings will be handed out like Halloween candy for the ones that provoke people. If you see a troll thread it’s best to keep away from it. The moderator will be along soon enough to delete it. I saw that particular thread and didn’t touch it as I figured anyone posting would risk an infraction.