The censoring

[JaddynnStarr.5201]

Censorship is too harsh here... i received 5 points for stating this....

 

"picks up credit card "

"walks to dresser "

"puts credit card in wallet "

"closes wallet "

"starts pre install of Battlefront 2"

"closes forum browser window"

 

5 points because the moderator "Felt" it wasn't constructive to talk about quitting the game....

 

I didn't even say i was quitting the game... in fact, in my previous posts, i simply stated i wasn't gonna buy anymore gems as a result of current Anet policy.

 

I guess I will have 5 more coming to me now...

[vesica tempestas.1563]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:

> > > @"Egorum.9506" said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > I don't think that's true, I have seen plenty discussions that have got to the edge of being arguments and have been allowed to run. The moderators do make mistakes ofc e.g i got an infraction once because a mod did not seem to know what 'dev-op maturity' meant and thought it was insulting their devs maturity lol, but in general when i've had an infraction it has been because i've got a bit hot under the collar.

>

> What does dev-op maturity mean? Like dev operation maturity, i.e. the level of completness of a project?

 

e.g https://www.atlassian.com/devops/maturity-model

 

my post that got an infraction : 'exactly so. Worse, changing release cycles because of delays instead of fitting good to go changes into planned release cycles smacks of dev op immaturity.'

 

and the infraction comment:

 

'In order to ensure our forums are pleasant and safe for all forum members, we expect all contributors to be respectful of one another, and that includes members of the ArenaNet staff and our company as a whole. You may not post rude comments directed towards our staff, teams, or the company. Thanks for your understanding. Please do not respond to this message; inquiries may be directed to Forums@Arena.Net.'

 

'thanks for my understanding' :P point was we all make mistakes, even mods, but on balance they are decent here :)

[Gaile Gray.6029]

> @"OrbitalButt.5708" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> >

> > > @"OrbitalButt.5708" said:

> > > I got an infraction for quoting Shakespeare. SHAKESPEARE

> >

> > Hey -- I'm curious. What was the quote? And did you e-mail for a review?

>

> The quote was "Brevity is the soul of wit," and it was in response to a very long thread about making legendary weapons or somesuch. I was trying to think of the least insulting way to say "This is too long and the length kills what humor there was" and I settled on a fairly well known quote by Shakespeare.

>

> I didn't submit it for review because I am an extremely dense person and wasn't sure of the proper procedure, also I didn't think it was worth it. It just seemed totally absurd to be infracted for Shakespeare

>

> Thanks for asking though

>

I am so sorry. That was perfectly fine and acceptable. You did not ask it, but I reversed that warning anyway. Again, I apologize for the error.

[OrbitalButt.5708]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"OrbitalButt.5708" said:

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

> > >

> > > > @"OrbitalButt.5708" said:

> > > > I got an infraction for quoting Shakespeare. SHAKESPEARE

> > >

> > > Hey -- I'm curious. What was the quote? And did you e-mail for a review?

> >

> > The quote was "Brevity is the soul of wit," and it was in response to a very long thread about making legendary weapons or somesuch. I was trying to think of the least insulting way to say "This is too long and the length kills what humor there was" and I settled on a fairly well known quote by Shakespeare.

> >

> > I didn't submit it for review because I am an extremely dense person and wasn't sure of the proper procedure, also I didn't think it was worth it. It just seemed totally absurd to be infracted for Shakespeare

> >

> > Thanks for asking though

> >

> I am so sorry that was perfectly fine. You did not ask it, but I reversed that warning anyway. I'm sorry for the error.

 

Thanks very much :)

[coglin.1496]

> @"Raithwall.8201" said:

> - I'd define a "real insult" as a statement with the explicit meaning to insult somebody - e.g. good old "excretory organ"

 

You seem to think how YOU define things means anything. it does not. As well "real insults" can easily be insulting while not intending to be so. Your subjective opinion od what words mean will not change what the words actually mean.

 

> - its not my "job" to correct people - true - but i should be to speak freely what i think about someones statement. if someone blatantly lies he deserves to be called by what he is - a liar. You are not a liar if you dont know it better, lying is telling untruth intentionally.

 

No, you shouldn't be able to speak freely. This is a private companies forums. They make the rules and define what is allowed to be said. If you dislike that or have difficulty understanding the rules, you are welcome to refrain from participating in the forums and take your discussions elsewhere. That is everyone's right.

 

> - there is always someone who will feel bad about any given statement, this should not lead to censorship.

 

Just because someone is offended does not mean it breaks a rule or that an infraction will be given. I feel you are being overly sensitive with your claims here. They make the rules and define what is allowed to be said. If you dislike that or have difficulty understanding the rules, you are welcome to refrain from participating in the forums and take your discussions elsewhere. That is everyone's right.

 

 

> - I acknowledged that and its their right, but I dont like their implementation of said right.

 

So? If you do not like how things work here, if you are an American, it is your right to form a competing forum and st the rules you do or do not like.

 

>There is a reason government should not restrict free speech more than absolutely necessary and appropriate.

 

What does government have to do with a privately operated forums run by a private company?

 

> @"Egorum.9506" said:

> I'm not defending an immoral or irregular opinion, I'm stating that gaile has her sensitivity turned up too high.

 

You appear to confuse your subjective opinion with that of actual objective facts.

 

>Most people are not so conservative, she shouldn't apply her personal moral code to moderating a multimillion dollar video game forum as that is not professional.

 

Personally, I question your worldly experience in that I suspect you actually have no real clue of "most" peoples level of conservatism or liberalism when it comes to how yo interpret the rules here.

 

As to Gailes, moral code, you seem to fail to comprehend how the real world works in my opinion. The lead enforcer of the rules is precisely whose moral code should be making the decisions. Given the comments, you have been infracted for, I am much more thankful Gaile makes these decisions and not yourself.

 

There is an reason why they chose to hire Gaile and not yourself.

 

> If I took offense to your statement, believing that you are implying I am immoral, and reported it- how well would you take that? You believe that you are not being rude, but I've been actioned for similar comments. Turning down the sensitivity is best for everyone.

 

If you take offense, report it. So what? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I know how I would take that. I wouldn't care less. Instead of just complaining about your suspicion that someone is being rude, report it and move on.

 

 

 

 

[ThiBash.5634]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"OrbitalButt.5708" said:

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

> > >

> > > > @"OrbitalButt.5708" said:

> > > > I got an infraction for quoting Shakespeare. SHAKESPEARE

> > >

> > > Hey -- I'm curious. What was the quote? And did you e-mail for a review?

> >

> > The quote was "Brevity is the soul of wit," and it was in response to a very long thread about making legendary weapons or somesuch. I was trying to think of the least insulting way to say "This is too long and the length kills what humor there was" and I settled on a fairly well known quote by Shakespeare.

> >

> > I didn't submit it for review because I am an extremely dense person and wasn't sure of the proper procedure, also I didn't think it was worth it. It just seemed totally absurd to be infracted for Shakespeare

> >

> > Thanks for asking though

> >

> I am so sorry. That was perfectly fine and acceptable. You did not ask it, but I reversed that warning anyway. Again, I apologize for the error.

 

Actually, I can kinda understand why that Shakespeare quote could be viewed as insulting. Because it loosely translates to "people who write shorter texts are smart and people who write long texts are dumb" or "people who write long texts aren't smart" (referencing the original poster as being one of those people since they wrote a long text). It being a famous quote by a celebrated literary genious doesn't affect what is actually being said. It's just an indirect, very verbose, flowery way of insulting someone's intelligence. But it's still the same as calling someone stupid. Or am I misinterpeting something here? English isn't my first language so I could be mistranslating.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:

> > > > @"Egorum.9506" said:

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > I don't think that's true, I have seen plenty discussions that have got to the edge of being arguments and have been allowed to run. The moderators do make mistakes ofc e.g i got an infraction once because a mod did not seem to know what 'dev-op maturity' meant and thought it was insulting their devs maturity lol, but in general when i've had an infraction it has been because i've got a bit hot under the collar.

> >

> > What does dev-op maturity mean? Like dev operation maturity, i.e. the level of completness of a project?

>

> e.g https://www.atlassian.com/devops/maturity-model

>

> my post that got an infraction : 'exactly so. Worse, changing release cycles because of delays instead of fitting good to go changes into planned release cycles smacks of dev op immaturity.'

>

> and the infraction comment:

>

> 'In order to ensure our forums are pleasant and safe for all forum members, we expect all contributors to be respectful of one another, and that includes members of the ArenaNet staff and our company as a whole. You may not post rude comments directed towards our staff, teams, or the company. Thanks for your understanding. Please do not respond to this message; inquiries may be directed to Forums@Arena.Net.'

>

> 'thanks for my understanding' :P point was we all make mistakes, even mods, but on balance they are decent here :)

 

So it was more a comment directed toward the production and patching cylce and perhaps not even their methods as a whole but just certain hiccups that occurred. I guess, if I were Gaile, I'd suggest you have said "...instead of fitting good to go changes into planned release cycles smacks of *a lack of* dev op maturity."?

[vesica tempestas.1563]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:

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

> > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:

> > > > > @"Egorum.9506" said:

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > I don't think that's true, I have seen plenty discussions that have got to the edge of being arguments and have been allowed to run. The moderators do make mistakes ofc e.g i got an infraction once because a mod did not seem to know what 'dev-op maturity' meant and thought it was insulting their devs maturity lol, but in general when i've had an infraction it has been because i've got a bit hot under the collar.

> > >

> > > What does dev-op maturity mean? Like dev operation maturity, i.e. the level of completness of a project?

> >

> > e.g https://www.atlassian.com/devops/maturity-model

> >

> > my post that got an infraction : 'exactly so. Worse, changing release cycles because of delays instead of fitting good to go changes into planned release cycles smacks of dev op immaturity.'

> >

> > and the infraction comment:

> >

> > 'In order to ensure our forums are pleasant and safe for all forum members, we expect all contributors to be respectful of one another, and that includes members of the ArenaNet staff and our company as a whole. You may not post rude comments directed towards our staff, teams, or the company. Thanks for your understanding. Please do not respond to this message; inquiries may be directed to Forums@Arena.Net.'

> >

> > 'thanks for my understanding' :P point was we all make mistakes, even mods, but on balance they are decent here :)

>

> So it was more a comment directed toward the production and patching cylce and perhaps not even their methods as a whole but just certain hiccups that occurred. I guess, if I were Gaile, I'd suggest you have said "...instead of fitting good to go changes into planned release cycles smacks of *a lack of* dev op maturity."?

 

seems like immaturity is a trigger word so yep lol

 

https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2017/8/devops-jobs-how-spot-great-devops-shop ... 'the separate team can be a clue to an immature DevOps shop' etc

[Dashingsteel.3410]

When thinking of Anet forum moderation, I think of a liberal college safe space. If you post anything that might cause another person to need to pet puppies or color books you probably will get infracted.

 

This is definitely not a free speech area and don't expect neutrality.

[Raithwall.8201]

@IndigoSundown.5419 and coglin.1496

you got some good points there and I agree to the most of your points. (they are the reason this is only my fourth? post on this forum)

 

@coglin.1496 - Things I dont agree with is that you also cannot look into the brain of a poster. how do you want to know if something is meant as an insult - YOUR subjective opinion seems to decide here - for the words another person wrote. I guess nearly every word can be used as an insult - that doesnt mean every word should be censored for (because there might always be someone offended by said word). Another thing is that censoring seems to be a good thing to you. In my opinion freedom of speech should rather not be censored if possible rather than the other way around (even by non government structures - because they lead to people disagreeing with the structures policy leaving the structure for another one where more people share their views which might lead to "echo chambers". People should talk to each other - this is the only path to progress)

(also if I write that something is my opinion it generally means that I have this opinion not that it may be everyones. Its actually implied in the words "in MY opinion")

 

Also I myself and a majority (or at very least a substential amount) of the gw2 forum-using playerbase is avoiding the official gw2 forum (or is, like myself, not contributing to it - I read it sometimes, but rarely contribute to a topic) and I think thats a bad thing. The official forum, in my opinion, should be there for as much of the community as possible.

It even goes as far that when you want to get reactions from Anet workers (other than warnings and bans - hah) you are better off using another platform.

 

Have a good day

[Weindrasi.3805]

At the end of the day, I don't care if I get infracted. I don't even care if I get -unfairly- infracted (it happened on one occasion. I appealed, the mod apologized, the infraction was removed. Seems very reasonable to me).

But see, even if my appeal had failed and that unfair infraction had been upheld, it would be fine. Guild Wars 2 is a game, and this is a game forum. I'd rather put my mental and emotional efforts into things of actual importance--spouse, family, education, personal well-being.

My advise to anyone getting overly-frustrated about or on these forums is to put them down a few rows on your list of things that matter. Because at the end of the day, even if you're 100% right about a problem and the mods (or whoever else) is 100% wrong, refusing to admit it, and compromising the quality of the forums because of it.... they're still just game forums when there's a whole wide world to live in outside.

[Egorum.9506]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Egorum.9506" said:

> > > @"ratche.6204" said:

> > > > @"Egorum.9506" said:

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

> > > > > I called it an insult, and I believe it was. I said it contributed nothing, and indeed it did not. It was mildly rude, mildly insulting, and the points given reflected that.

> > > >

> > > > Your opinions on what is insulting/rude are wayyyy off from the majority of the population. You seem to be easily offended and take offense at every remark on this forum asif it were a direct insult to you or your profession. Negative feedback is just as valuable as positive, heavily censoring it only angers your consumer base while solving none of the problems brought up.most people are not very conservative.

> > >

> > >

> > > This is your opinion and I don't think it's the majority opinion of the world, it's certainly not mine. I hear this often in discussions, people will defend an immoral or irregular opinion by saying this. Saying "well most people think like me" isn't a defense for rudeness in my opinion.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I'm not defending an immoral or irregular opinion, I'm stating that gaile has her sensitivity turned up too high. Most people are not so conservative, she shouldn't apply her personal moral code to moderating a multimillion dollar video game forum as that is not professional.

> >

> > If I took offense to your statement, believing that you are implying I am immoral, and reported it- how well would you take that? You believe that you are not being rude, but I've been actioned for similar comments. Turning down the sensitivity is best for everyone

>

> This is one of several posts in which you try to make this general topic into a personal review. Actually, several members believe you've resorted to personal attacks, which is unfortunate and unnecessary.

>

> You disagree with a professional, company-based decision on what standards we set for discussion on our private forums. You disagree with our [Forums Code of Conduct](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/the-forums-code-of-conduct/ "Forums Code of Conduct") and the way it is enforced. Let's look at both:

>

> The contents of the FCoC were determined and frequently are reviewed by a significant number of people both inside and outside the Forums Team. The FCoC also is subject to careful legal review, because we need to be respectful of laws in various areas of the world. The purpose of the rules is to create a desired atmosphere for the forums. They are determined by a group of professionals who possess a reasonable and player-focused frame of mind.

>

> Enforcement of the rules is handled by a team of people who come from wide variety of locations and backgrounds; different ages, genders, and personal beliefs. I do not try to ensure that every moderator walks lock-step with my _personal_ opinions, but rather than they enforce the _neutrally-set forum rules_. I do not inject my personal values -- my "personal moral code" -- into this forum any more than I would retain any moderator who did that. (In fact, you would have no idea what my "personal moral code" is and may be surprised to learn that I actually personally disagree with some of the rules, but understand that we have them for reasons of law, forum culture, or consistency.) My personal feelings do not sway my judgement in handling appeals, and as many here have attested, the appeal process can be very effective when an error has been made or a subsequent review shows that a reversal was warranted.

>

> You suggest 'turning down the sensitivity." I ask, to whose level? Yours? Your neighbor's? The opinion of a parent, grandparent, member of a religious group, folks of a specific political party, a member of a specific gender or age group, those who belong to a certain culture... ? It's easy to say lighten up a little but it's hard to know what that means, when there are many different opinions about what the standard or norm should be. That is exactly why we're careful to have rules and to enforce them neutrally and fairly. For instance, some people use the "F-word" frequently in their casual conversation, but few would argue that it should be allowed on the forums. We have different gradients of infractions -- from a single-point warning to a suspension -- to distinguish the difference between something that's mildly rude and something that's utterly unacceptable.

>

> On one thing we agree: Negative feedback is very important. But where our views separate is in the _presentation_ of that negative feedback. And for most, as it seems clear in this thread alone, not being subject to personal attacks or required to plow through a minefield of swearing is a very good thing, and it encourages more feedback, both positive and negative.

 

I'm more bothered by the email you sent me when I reported a player receiving preferential treatment from a gm. Instead of considering it you dismissed me out of hand and then mocked me for having suggested it. Extra professional way to handle it gaile, well done. I was very surprised considering your take on what is or is not rude, I guess it's really only other people that can be pricks though right?

 

How many people in this post alone have reported being infractions for truly mundane comments? Things no one in their right mind would take offense at? That's what I mean when I say turn the sensitivity down. It's a forum for a video game, not a convention of nuns.

 

It seems that any negative feedback that isn't absolutely simpering is deleted. You can't even comment on how you don't like the direction the game is going without it being taken as an assault on the developers.

 

Let's take a look at the terms of service concerning cheaters, such as wintraders or hackers- both of which are currently plaguing the pvp gamemode . Shouldn't it result in a ban instead of a 3 month time out? Yet the same streaming partners, people who are supposed to represent your game, are repeatedly caught doing it with nothing done to stop them. Is the ToS suddenly selective of which rules to enforce?

[Obtena.7952]

^^ This is not an honest assessment and cheaters/wintraders has NOTHING to do with forum moderation .... I'm slamming Anet's and players ideas and criticizing **all** the time ... if you've got some negative attention from Forum Mods, you weren't careful enough. Attacking PEOPLE and not IDEAS is the biggest trigger. You can tell what posters have overstepped the line. If you are really good at replying, you can '_help_' them learn that they have overstepped.

 

As someone that's been aggressive and gotten my fair share of warnings, etc ... all that I can say is if you are smart about how you post and know the triggers that get you in trouble, moderation should not be a problem for you, as I've learned to avoid more serious infractions. Anet errs on caution; yes they are sensitive at times ... and they are correct in doing so, to ensure people's opinions are heard, no matter how ... ill-inspired. People claiming that they are 'caught' with inconsistencies and unfair judgements ... you aren't really paying much attention to the triggers when you get those Forum Mod emails. All the hints for what to avoid have been given in this thread.

 

 

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Let's remember the topic of this thread: general forum moderation and policies. This is not the place to talk about your personal issues, be they feelings of harassment or persecution, active dislike of another person, arguments with CS policies, or concerns about in-game behavior.

 

Let's keep to the Big Picture and see what we can learn from one another. I'd like to leave this open for another day or two, then would like to revisit the topic at a later date. There's much to gain from the communication!

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

What ive noticed is that these forums are the pinnacle of passive aggressiveness. Ive seen tons of posts where people are extremely rude to other people while they are defending GW2 and their posts are allowed to stay because they are in defense of GW2. I have also seen people frustrated with the game and post things against gw2 that were highly questionable as to whether they were insulting or malicious and they get banned instantaneously. Why is anet so sensitive towards removing any negative criticism against their game, and allowing trolling comments to stay up for days that are in defense of the game?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Huh! And I've seen (and experienced) the opposite.

 

I'd guess it's neither all one nor the other.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> What ive noticed is that these forums are the pinnacle of passive aggressiveness. Ive seen tons of posts where people are extremely rude to other people while they are defending GW2 and their posts are allowed to stay because they are in defense of GW2. I have also seen people frustrated with the game and post things against gw2 that were highly questionable as to whether they were insulting or malicious and they get banned instantaneously. Why is anet so sensitive towards removing any negative criticism against their game, and allowing trolling comments to stay up for days that are in defense of the game?

 

If they are extremely rude to other people then report. You can even use the text section below to explain why you think that post is rude. If you think a post is trolling then do the same. Truthfully I haven’t seen these “extremely rude” or “trolling” posts that stay up long. If they are then I suspect they aren’t getting reported. The mods are not going to catch everything right away. They rely on the community to report “extremely rude” or “troll” posts to get these posts removed in a timely manner.

[Cantatus.4065]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Healix.5819" said:

> > They have this policy where they're not allowed to edit posts, so if you quote someone, they'll delete your entire post if the quote is. It's pretty funny, since I've had it happen in the support forums a few times over the years when answering multiple people's problems at once.

> >

> > > Zedek.8932 said:

> > > This nothing was 1 infraction point. Great, isn't it?

> >

> > Just because there's nothing there doesn't meant it was nothing. They could have simply forgot to quote it. Maybe it was your post on March 7th in how many accounts?

> >

> You're right. We don't edit posts because doing so can open the door to concerns about "stealth edits" or unscrupulous intrusion into a person's own comments. Therefore we have a strictly hands-off policy on comments. We may edit a topic line to make it more topical -- not "Anet, look at this" but "Bug: Weapon issue" -- because that reduces click-bait posts and helps members know at a glance if they want to read a thread. But the body -- we try to be completely out of it. And that does mean that if someone quotes it, we are then required to remove their post, too, to eliminate the already-removed comments by the person who was quoted.

>

> I'm willing to consider another process, but this is awkward:

>

> * [Comments removed because they quoted a thread that was removed]

>

> * And here's my answer to that!....

>

> I mean, what is the "that" there? :)

>

>

 

I feel like this is something that should absolutely get more consideration. When someone writes several constructive paragraphs in response to someone else and crosses the line once, removing the entire post is often going to be seen as too heavy-handed. If someone responds to two different people in a single post, being helpful to one and a little rude to the other, anything in that post that could've been beneficial to the community is lost because it came with (potentially unrelated) rudeness. Removing rudeness from the boards makes sense and isn't something I'm going to complain about, but should it come at the cost of anything good that accompanies it? Like someone else said, it gives the perception of things being very black and white here. If your post has the slightest tinge of gray, it's gone.

 

More than that, removing someone _else's_ post purely because they quoted the person and didn't break any rules themselves is ridiculous and strikes me as being over-the-top. I can understand why it's done (since it makes no sense to remove something that broke a rule one place but leave it visible somewhere else), but you're effectively punishing someone for nothing other than utilizing a board feature. I know I've had posts that have been removed because of this, and it has always rubbed me the wrong way (especially since I'm not even notified of it, which is sort of rude in itself). While I know I didn't break any rules myself, I still can't help but feel as though I'm being chastised. As a result, it's made me more reluctant in posting or responding to people, because I don't know if I'll come back to the board a couple hours later and have the post that I put a lot of thought into deleted because I accidentally quoted the wrong thing (or quoted the person who quoted the wrong thing). Not to mention it also has the effect of breaking up conversations and killing threads. I've come back to threads before that seem to become really disjointed when a conversation is going in an entirely different direction all of the sudden since several posts worth of context have been gutted.

 

Frankly, I think this is something that does more harm than good because it's simultaneously removing a lot of productive things from the boards to scrub away the unproductive. While I can understand wanting to avoid being accused of making "stealth edits", I've been a member of _many_ forums where the moderators will edit out offenses while leaving anything that doesn't break rules (in fact, that's how most I've posted on operate). As long as there is full transparency and some oversight within Anet (which, based on my experience moderating forums in the past, I suspect already exists since software I've used before allows admins to access edit logs), it tends to work. Rather than deleting my post because I mistakenly quoted something that broke a rule, why not just edit out the quote and leave the response so long as it's not violating a rule itself? If someone posts something extremely helpful but says one rude thing, why not remove the rude thing with a note why? Or, why not warn the person and give them a chance to fix it themselves?

 

Right now, though, you have a policy in place that is set up to remove helpful and productive posts as a consequence, often from people who haven't done anything wrong. Surely you can see how that would give people the perception that censoring here is too extreme. And honestly, even speaking as someone who I can't recall ever getting in trouble for violating a forum rule, it'd take a lot to convince me that removing the posts of people who don't violate rules is not an extreme action.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

I’d rather my post be moderated with a deletion of what the mod doesn’t like than deleted completely. I’ve seen forums where there’s a note under the poster’s text that says [This post has been moderated] where the moderator removed something. I may have spent a fair amount of time and effort to say something just to have my post deleted for saying something like, “your opinion is negative” and in addition have all the people who quote me (and the people who quote the people who quoted me) with a rebuttal be deleted through no fault of their own. Serial deletions can gut a thread so that they no longer make sense.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

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

> > > > @"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?

> >

> > So what does it bring to the forum? What intrinsic value does it have? If it's just another "my kitten is bigger" thing, which it seemingly would be, there's no reason for it. I'm not a fan of upvoting either, by the way, but it's a lot less likely to lead to people over on 4chan high fiving each other for "pwning that noob on the forums".

>

> Well firstly, if someone has to resort to bringing up the number of thumbs up or thumbs down, they likely are not very good at discussion or are just a [kitten] anyway.

>

> Secondly, you're asking me to answer the question I asked that started this line of discussion. I asked you what actual effect or impact the thumbs down feature has and presented Gaile's comment that an effect was there. Then I presented another of her posts expressing two positions, one favorable and one less favorable, a binary set of options where the favorable position is wholly duplicated by the thumbs down feature. The logic I'm leading you through is the thumbs down feature, whatever non-tangible impact it might have, might have been considered for removal based on premises that contradict their own rules. Think of the thumbs down feature as a post and people are reporting that post to the moderators to be removed. On what premise do they argue to have someone's "I disagree" post removed?

 

I have asked twice, once in the post you just quoted, what value it has. I disagree that it's a needed function on the forum. See, I disagreed with you, and didn't require a "Thumb Down" to do it. If it added something to the forums, it might be worth having, but it clearly doesn't have any value, or you could have stated an objective value that it has. As to getting a post removed, if you find it offensive, you report it. If the powers that be agree, it's going to be gone. If you're concern is that someone is disagreeing with you, but you can't get a ton of friends to all come on and down vote 'em for it, well that's a shame, isn't it? Maybe you should try proving them wrong, or that you're opinion has merit, if it's not a case of right and wrong, and neither of those require a down vote button to achieve.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

And, often, it's only the posts that quote a post that violates the FCoC that are very near said post that are removed. Posts that quote it further in the thread are left standing. (Of course, it depends on how long the violating post was left up, in the first place, and how long the thread has become. Probably happens on weekends/holidays more.)

[Zedek.8932]

> @"coglin.1496" said:

> If you take offense, report it. So what?

 

Here kicks my personal problem in. Some of my infractions were with no reason, and I also had an eMail conversation with Gaile about that in 2016 I think, and just with the aforementioned Shakespeare quote, things can be reverted. So if Shakespeare and saying "If you don't like the game, you can go elsewhere, Jesus Christ" [that was one of my my infraction....] is both worth an infraction, fine in that moment, I see where the limits are.

 

However, when I see a post containing 500x kitten and I report that and nothing happens, because, as far as I recall the official response was something along the lines: "The kitten filter is there to soften swearwords and thus it's a fine [clean] post after the filter applied", a normal person can get angry at that kind of forum moderation. The sheer fact it triggers the filter should automatically consider it for moderation. Not a Shakespeare one-liner.

 

Look, I know the forums are a privilige. But I've been infracted for mentioning my support requests are not answered, and thus the company is not as good as it claims when it comes to response times of requests and forum problems. (The thread was the "Is the support working" or something wich boiled down to "Does the support understand English", maybe you remember that). So the whole thread talks about the support, I do, too, but get infracted, because... I don'tknow. It also contained the part that I deserved some of the infractions, but eh, "talking about moderation" was worth 3 points I remember. With a thread full of the same stuff.

 

I had several workshops in labour law during my time as shop chairman. Literally weeks of training about the German law to fight the stupid ideas of a multi-billion Euro company. But the forum rules and its infraction system - I just can't get them, a 27-year old like me can't make it out clearly when I can post something and be safe. Sometimes an infraction took several days after my post, despite the thread has been busy. So what was that all about? Not because of malicious thoughts, but just for constantly changing thresholds of the moderation, I feel that's my personal problem here.

 

Right now, getting infracted or even banned does not necessarily mean that you are actually a "Bad Boy".

 

Excelsior..

[Bast.7253]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > @"coglin.1496" said:

> > If you take offense, report it. So what?

>

> Here kicks my personal problem in. Some of my infractions were with no reason, and I also had an eMail conversation with Gaile about that in 2016 I think, and just with the aforementioned Shakespeare quote, things can be reverted. So if Shakespeare and saying "If you don't like the game, you can go elsewhere, Jesus Christ" [that was one of my my infraction....] is both worth an infraction, fine in that moment, I see where the limits are.

>

> However, when I see a post containing 500x kitten and I report that and nothing happens, because, as far as I recall the official response was something along the lines: "The kitten filter is there to soften swearwords and thus it's a fine [clean] post after the filter applied", a normal person can get angry at that kind of forum moderation. The sheer fact it triggers the filter should automatically consider it for moderation. Not a Shakespeare one-liner.

>

> Look, I know the forums are a privilige. But I've been infracted for mentioning my support requests are not answered, and thus the company is not as good as it claims when it comes to response times of requests and forum problems. (The thread was the "Is the support working" or something wich boiled down to "Does the support understand English", maybe you remember that). So the whole thread talks about the support, I do, too, but get infracted, because... I don'tknow. It also contained the part that I deserved some of the infractions, but eh, "talking about moderation" was worth 3 points I remember. With a thread full of the same stuff.

>

> I had several workshops in labour law during my time as shop chairman. Literally weeks of training about the German law to fight the stupid ideas of a multi-billion Euro company. But the forum rules and its infraction system - I just can't get them, a 27-year old like me can't make it out clearly when I can post something and be safe. Sometimes an infraction took several days after my post, despite the thread has been busy. So what was that all about? Not because of malicious thoughts, but just for constantly changing thresholds of the moderation, I feel that's my personal problem here.

>

> Right now, getting infracted or even banned does not necessarily mean that you are actually a "Bad Boy".

>

> Excelsior..

 

I actually love the kitten filter. Who doesn’t want to see 500 kittens?

 

It’s a nice feature for someone like me who doesn’t really watch what language they use, anywhere.

 

And sometimes trying to decipher posts with every other word being kitten is hilarious.

 

But this is kind of off topic. Lol

 

[Tiny Doom.4380]

This is a fascinating thread. My question is this: how do you know you've had a Warning or an Infraction? I've been posting here since the game launched and I'm not aware of ever having had one, but reading the detailed explanations of what is and isn't acceptable I find it hard to imagine I haven't breached the guidelines at some point - probably quite a few times.

 

When I've read about other people having Forum Warnings I imagined they'd get an email and, presumably, a suspension form posting for some period. The email addresses I use for my account are used for that purpose alone. One of them I don't believe I have ever looked at since the day I made them and the other two I look at only a few times a year. As for the little things at the top of the Forum page (Notifications and Inbox), I have never clicked on those since the day GW2 began. I seem to have 70 Notifications and 1 item in my inbox. I have no plans on ever opening those or looking at them.

 

I'm wondering whether I'm getting Warnings and not knowing about it. If so, and if they are having no effect on my ability to post, what are they for?

[RoseofGilead.8907]

> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> This is a fascinating thread. My question is this: how do you know you've had a Warning or an Infraction? I've been posting here since the game launched and I'm not aware of ever having had one, but reading the detailed explanations of what is and isn't acceptable I find it hard to imagine I haven't breached the guidelines at some point - probably quite a few times.

>

> When I've read about other people having Forum Warnings I imagined they'd get an email and, presumably, a suspension form posting for some period. The email addresses I use for my account are used for that purpose alone. One of them I don't believe I have ever looked at since the day I made them and the other two I look at only a few times a year. As for the little things at the top of the Forum page (Notifications and Inbox), I have never clicked on those since the day GW2 began. I seem to have 70 Notifications and 1 item in my inbox. I have no plans on ever opening those or looking at them.

>

> I'm wondering whether I'm getting Warnings and not knowing about it. If so, and if they are having no effect on my ability to post, what are they for?

 

You get a mail here on the forums, not to your email address. If you get one, you'll get a notification letting you know you have a new mail in your inbox. And, usually, you'll either be given a Warning (with no Infraction points) or a notice that you have an Infraction with a certain number of points applied to your account; any such points usually go away within a set, short period of time. If you say something particularly offensive or against the rules, then you get a temporary ban. So, if you're still able to post without issue, odds are you haven't done much of anything to get reported or have action taken against you.