Please Allow Matchup Threads

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said:

> Wrestling = WvW

> Supermarket = GW2 forum

> Wrestling inside the supermarket = Talking about WvW matches in GW2 forum

Except by your comparison, you're taking team chat into the forum... yeah... about that...

[Waffler.1257]

It would probably be fine if they added it back since nobody cares about WvW anymore. Most of the forum trolling was server x calling server y bad, guild x calling guild y bad, or solo roaming player x calling other players in general bad... but there aren't servers anymore, all the organized guilds are dead, and nobody solo roams anymore so we're good to go :)

[Gaile Gray.6029]

I popped in here to answer a request, and had to smile when I saw a *whole* lotta people saying what I was going to say. :grin:

 

The fact is, we've tried hosting match-up threads several times. Sometimes the threads went great: constructive, predominantly reasonable tone, restrained (to avoid overt name calling and insults), thoughtful, etc. But mostly they were rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, a factor of Internet anonymity removing some people's self-filter and their impulse control. Where people could be clever in stating their world's superiority or another's inferiority (think Monty Python hamster/elderberries) the threads mostly devolved into really toxic comments that weren't worth the pixels it took to display them.

 

When one small subforum took more than 1/3 (!) of our moderation time, it was critical to consider how we moved forward. There were meaningful and reasonable match-up threads, for sure. Some people went out of their way to try for a balanced comment, even a constructive suggestion. But for every one that went along with a reasonable tone, there were probably 8 or 10 that spiraled into _really_ offensive comments, the use of OTT name-calling, word-filter work-arounds (in order to insult someone), the whole lot.

 

I actually reached out to the WvW team several months ago to ask about whether we wanted to reconsider allowing match-up threads. We had a great conversation about them and at that time, an awareness of the costs (not moderation costs, the social costs) led me to feel that those costs outweighed the benefits, which confirmed the decision to not reinstate the option. I will see about talking with the team on this subject again sometime soon.

[msalakka.4653]

Yeah. Not that matchups are a big part of WvW or anything.

Might be best to just have a sticky post on the forum listing the acceptable topics, so that the few who still come here to check up on the "updates to the game mode" (lol) will know what they can and cannot say.

It's just that it's getting stale when all we can talk about is the lack of class balance.

Or can we still talk about that?

[Gaile Gray.6029]

> @"msalakka.4653" said:

 

> Or can we still talk about that?

 

Of course you can. Feedback is welcome. **Constructive** feedback (with good suggestions) is golden.

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

Remember when we had a third-party forum for hosting match-up threads and then everyone who posted there basically quit cuz it got old and moved onto real-time flaming on discord?

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I popped in here to answer a request, and had to smile when I saw a *whole* lotta people saying what I was going to say. :grin:

>

> The fact is, we've tried hosting match-up threads several times. Sometimes the threads went great: constructive, predominantly reasonable tone, restrained (to avoid overt name calling and insults), thoughtful, etc. But mostly they were rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, a factor of Internet anonymity removing some people's self-filter and their impulse control. Where people could be clever in stating their world's superiority or another's inferiority (think Monty Python hamster/elderberries) the threads mostly devolved into really toxic comments that weren't worth the pixels it took to display them.

>

> When one small subforum took more than 1/3 (!) of our moderation time, it was critical to consider how we moved forward. There were meaningful and reasonable match-up threads, for sure. Some people went out of their way to try for a balanced comment, even a constructive suggestion. But for every one that went along with a reasonable tone, there were probably 8 or 10 that spiraled into _really_ offensive comments, the use of OTT name-calling, word-filter work-arounds (in order to insult someone), the whole lot.

>

> I actually reached out to the WvW team several months ago to ask about whether we wanted to reconsider allowing match-up threads. We had a great conversation about them and at that time, an awareness of the costs (not moderation costs, the social costs) led me to feel that those costs outweighed the benefits, which confirmed the decision to not reinstate the option. I will see about talking with the team on this subject again sometime soon.

 

Thank you for the reply Gaile!

 

I'd like to suggest not worrying about having a team meeting again, considering that world restructuring is going to happen and all the servers are going bye bye anyway.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Remember when we had a third-party forum for hosting match-up threads and then everyone who posted there basically quit cuz it got old and moved onto real-time flaming on discord?

Ah, the joys of advancing technology. Now imagine when Discord is going to be VR!

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"Waffler.1257" said:

> It would probably be fine if they added it back since nobody cares about WvW anymore. Most of the forum trolling was server x calling server y bad, guild x calling guild y bad, or solo roaming player x calling other players in general bad... but there aren't servers anymore, all the organized guilds are dead, and nobody solo roams anymore so we're good to go :)

 

Maybe people will become more competitive in hopes of obtaining some sweet trash talk material?

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > @"Waffler.1257" said:

> > It would probably be fine if they added it back since nobody cares about WvW anymore. Most of the forum trolling was server x calling server y bad, guild x calling guild y bad, or solo roaming player x calling other players in general bad... but there aren't servers anymore, all the organized guilds are dead, and nobody solo roams anymore so we're good to go :)

>

> Maybe people will become more competitive in hopes of obtaining some sweet trash talk material?

 

In fairness much of the trash talk that I saw in matchup threads revolved around certain servers and their hackeisters ruining the matchup, no matter how many times it got reported up.. I still remember all those under surface and fly/speed hackbro's going round. When your stuck with the same servers in matchups for weeks and weeks on end.. the matchup thread was always going to degenerate.

Thankfully we don't see too much of those issues these days, so yeah I am all for having matchup threads back up.. sever banter may be the only thing that remains once the restructure happens and another gamemode loses its identity.

It is nearing the point that there is simply no reason to have anymore than one server in Europe, one server in States because being on anything else is meaningless.. except of course xfer fees, though why anyone will bother doing that after the loss of server identity is beyond me.

[Kovu.7560]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Remember when we had a third-party forum for hosting match-up threads and then everyone who posted there basically quit cuz it got old and moved onto real-time flaming on discord?

 

There was nearly no moderation, intentionally. Only a few things were taboo. That was the idea. Two years into that forum's existence few people were talking about the matchups anymore, instead flinging personal insults at each other. A lot of people enjoyed the banter, but that forum grew to be even less constructive than I expected. I haven't joined the discord for that reason. There's nothing really to be gained by matchup threads in that environment.

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> But mostly they were rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, a factor of Internet anonymity removing some people's self-filter and their impulse control.

 

Nailed it. If people want to pull that stuff on some discord server unaffiliated with the game somewhere, they're more than welcome to. Not on the official forum. I'm done having my family insulted and being accused of practicing bestiality because people are salty I stomped them in game then poked them about it on a forum.

 

~ Kovu

[Gaile Gray.6029]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > I popped in here to answer a request, and had to smile when I saw a *whole* lotta people saying what I was going to say. :grin:

> >

> > The fact is, we've tried hosting match-up threads several times. Sometimes the threads went great: constructive, predominantly reasonable tone, restrained (to avoid overt name calling and insults), thoughtful, etc. But mostly they were rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, a factor of Internet anonymity removing some people's self-filter and their impulse control. Where people could be clever in stating their world's superiority or another's inferiority (think Monty Python hamster/elderberries) the threads mostly devolved into really toxic comments that weren't worth the pixels it took to display them.

> >

> > When one small subforum took more than 1/3 (!) of our moderation time, it was critical to consider how we moved forward. There were meaningful and reasonable match-up threads, for sure. Some people went out of their way to try for a balanced comment, even a constructive suggestion. But for every one that went along with a reasonable tone, there were probably 8 or 10 that spiraled into _really_ offensive comments, the use of OTT name-calling, word-filter work-arounds (in order to insult someone), the whole lot.

> >

> > I actually reached out to the WvW team several months ago to ask about whether we wanted to reconsider allowing match-up threads. We had a great conversation about them and at that time, an awareness of the costs (not moderation costs, the social costs) led me to feel that those costs outweighed the benefits, which confirmed the decision to not reinstate the option. I will see about talking with the team on this subject again sometime soon.

>

> Thank you for the reply Gaile!

>

> I'd like to suggest not worrying about having a team meeting again, considering that world restructuring is going to happen and all the servers are going bye bye anyway.

 

Point well taken. Thanks. :)

[Jeknar.6184]

> @"Kovu.7560" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > Remember when we had a third-party forum for hosting match-up threads and then everyone who posted there basically quit cuz it got old and moved onto real-time flaming on discord?

>

> There was nearly no moderation, intentionally. Only a few things were taboo. That was the idea. Two years into that forum's existence few people were talking about the matchups anymore, instead flinging personal insults at each other. A lot of people enjoyed the banter, but that forum grew to be even less constructive than I expected. I haven't joined the discord for that reason. There's nothing really to be gained by matchup threads in that environment.

 

The intentional lack of moderation was a response to how people felt about the moderation in the official forums. Of course, that brought up the worst out of some people... I have a very high tolerance to bullshit but some people there were just way too low even for me. But despite it's short commings, I still had a reasonable ammount of entertainment on the Cancer Forums (As people nicknamed it due the toxicity) and still do on the formed WvW Discord (Which also received the forum nickname).

 

That said... CANCER FORUM MEMES MAY NEVER DIE:

 

~

K

O

V

U

[Israel.7056]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I popped in here to answer a request, and had to smile when I saw a *whole* lotta people saying what I was going to say. :grin:

>

> The fact is, we've tried hosting match-up threads several times. Sometimes the threads went great: constructive, predominantly reasonable tone, restrained (to avoid overt name calling and insults), thoughtful, etc. But mostly they were rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, a factor of Internet anonymity removing some people's self-filter and their impulse control. Where people could be clever in stating their world's superiority or another's inferiority (think Monty Python hamster/elderberries) the threads mostly devolved into really toxic comments that weren't worth the pixels it took to display them.

>

> When one small subforum took more than 1/3 (!) of our moderation time, it was critical to consider how we moved forward. There were meaningful and reasonable match-up threads, for sure. Some people went out of their way to try for a balanced comment, even a constructive suggestion. But for every one that went along with a reasonable tone, there were probably 8 or 10 that spiraled into _really_ offensive comments, the use of OTT name-calling, word-filter work-arounds (in order to insult someone), the whole lot.

>

> I actually reached out to the WvW team several months ago to ask about whether we wanted to reconsider allowing match-up threads. We had a great conversation about them and at that time, an awareness of the costs (not moderation costs, the social costs) led me to feel that those costs outweighed the benefits, which confirmed the decision to not reinstate the option. I will see about talking with the team on this subject again sometime soon.

 

Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

[Diku.2546]

Yes, the idea behind Match-Up threads is highly appealing on the surface...

 

It's all nice & all...until somebody goes & pokes somebody's eyes out & permanently blinds them.

 

It's simply not worth the exposure to ANet from my perspective.

 

1) Legal responsibility if things "get out of hand". See - Madden Tournament.

 

2) The cost to properly staff a moderating group trained on cultural, psychological, and social norms to respond to discussions that may "get out of hand".

 

3) Cost not spent on the above...should be used for Development & Providing QoL to the game mode.

 

Done positively...it's wonderful & exhilarating...but the exposure isn't worth it for ANet in my opinion.

 

Fan based sites might provide an alternative in allowing this to happen, but these sites need to be fully aware of the responsibility that they'll have to assume. Imagine these positive sports fans suddenly turning negative & being responsible for their massive volume of behavior.

 

 

Yours truly,

Diku

 

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

[Ben K.6238]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

 

It could also get ANet in legal trouble. Locking any threads about matchups is easy enough and a lot safer from their perspective.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

 

> Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

 

Tell me, do other companies do that? I can't think of a single one that allows their official, company-owned forum to go unmoderated on some level, to become the inevitable cesspool of personal attacks and defamation. Over 20+ years, I've seen a **lot** of fan-run forums come and go. Most are great and some of them are running after a decade and more. But those that had the "no holds barred" or the "you have been warned about being here" philosophy have each eventually fell into disuse when they became too unpleasant for even the most unpleasant of contributors to remain.

 

In a non-moderated forum, you could have extremely offensive insults, threats of physical violence, doxing, and more. What company would take that on -- would even want to be associated with such a thing -- in the interests of satisfying a small segment of their overall community that wants to swim in the muck?

 

If we're going to offer a forum, we want to have standards to try to keep it approachable and pleasant for the majority of members. I don't mean we'll link arms and waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, because sometimes that road is pretty covered in salt. :D But moderating the worst offenses is a good thing, in my opinion.

 

 

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

>

> > Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

>

> Tell me, do other companies do that? I can't think of a single one that allows their official, company-owned forum to go unmoderated on some level, to become the inevitable cesspool of personal attacks and defamation. Over 20+ years, I've seen a **lot** of fan-run forums come and go. Most are great and some of them are running after a decade and more. But those that had the "no holds barred" or the "you have been warned about being here" philosophy have each eventually fell into disuse when they became too unpleasant for even the most unpleasant of contributors to remain.

>

> In a non-moderated forum, you could have extremely offensive insults, threats of physical violence, doxing, and more. What company would take that on -- would even want to be associated with such a thing -- in the interests of satisfying a small segment of their overall community that wants to swim in the muck?

>

> If we're going to offer a forum, we want to have standards to try to keep it approachable and pleasant for the majority of members. I don't mean we'll link arms and waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, because sometimes that road is pretty covered in salt. :D But moderating the worst offenses is a good thing, in my opinion.

>

>

 

*queue mic drop*

[Towelie.9504]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

>

> > Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

>

> Tell me, do other companies do that? I can't think of a single one that allows their official, company-owned forum to go unmoderated on some level, to become the inevitable cesspool of personal attacks and defamation. Over 20+ years, I've seen a **lot** of fan-run forums come and go. Most are great and some of them are running after a decade and more. But those that had the "no holds barred" or the "you have been warned about being here" philosophy have each eventually fell into disuse when they became too unpleasant for even the most unpleasant of contributors to remain.

>

> In a non-moderated forum, you could have extremely offensive insults, threats of physical violence, doxing, and more. What company would take that on -- would even want to be associated with such a thing -- in the interests of satisfying a small segment of their overall community that wants to swim in the muck?

>

> If we're going to offer a forum, we want to have standards to try to keep it approachable and pleasant for the majority of members. I don't mean we'll link arms and waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, because sometimes that road is pretty covered in salt. :D But moderating the worst offenses is a good thing, in my opinion.

>

>

 

Maybe ignore that suggestion because it wasn't a well throught out idea anyhow, but back to the point can we discuss matchups here assuming _it is moderated_

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Towelie.9504" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> >

> > > Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

> >

> > Tell me, do other companies do that? I can't think of a single one that allows their official, company-owned forum to go unmoderated on some level, to become the inevitable cesspool of personal attacks and defamation. Over 20+ years, I've seen a **lot** of fan-run forums come and go. Most are great and some of them are running after a decade and more. But those that had the "no holds barred" or the "you have been warned about being here" philosophy have each eventually fell into disuse when they became too unpleasant for even the most unpleasant of contributors to remain.

> >

> > In a non-moderated forum, you could have extremely offensive insults, threats of physical violence, doxing, and more. What company would take that on -- would even want to be associated with such a thing -- in the interests of satisfying a small segment of their overall community that wants to swim in the muck?

> >

> > If we're going to offer a forum, we want to have standards to try to keep it approachable and pleasant for the majority of members. I don't mean we'll link arms and waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, because sometimes that road is pretty covered in salt. :D But moderating the worst offenses is a good thing, in my opinion.

> >

> >

>

> Maybe ignore that suggestion because it wasn't a well throught out idea anyhow, but back to the point can we discuss matchups here assuming _it is moderated_

 

She already answered that question earlier in this thread. The answer was no.

[SloRules.3560]

Come on i'm hardcore GvGer, i can hold so much salt that most others would dry out multiple times over, but even i see that you can't have matchup threads on these forums. Most of them are just trashtalk over trashtalk.

 

As for THE cancer forums, those didn't die because of toxicity.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

>

> > Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

>

> Tell me, do other companies do that? I can't think of a single one that allows their official, company-owned forum to go unmoderated on some level, to become the inevitable cesspool of personal attacks and defamation. Over 20+ years, I've seen a **lot** of fan-run forums come and go. Most are great and some of them are running after a decade and more. But those that had the "no holds barred" or the "you have been warned about being here" philosophy have each eventually fell into disuse when they became too unpleasant for even the most unpleasant of contributors to remain.

>

> In a non-moderated forum, you could have extremely offensive insults, threats of physical violence, doxing, and more. What company would take that on -- would even want to be associated with such a thing -- in the interests of satisfying a small segment of their overall community that wants to swim in the muck?

>

> If we're going to offer a forum, we want to have standards to try to keep it approachable and pleasant for the majority of members. I don't mean we'll link arms and waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, because sometimes that road is pretty covered in salt. :D But moderating the worst offenses is a good thing, in my opinion.

>

>

 

Thats right but everything involves a trade off. The trade off for your moderation policy has been to leave many players feeling completely alienated from your company and to reduce the primal fun of a part of the product you're offering.

 

You have restricted our ability to talk to one another however we want in part due to your concerns about the nastier side of human nature. You're not wrong people can be very unpleasant to one another. But the price of eliminating it entirely has been to eliminate one of the chief sources of emotional investment in a game mode like this.

 

You may not see value in "rolling in the mud" but it is precisely that sort of drama that can give greater context to a video game that simulates war.

 

On a philosophical level it doesn't matter what other companies do. It matters what you decide to do. You are not philosophically bound to adhere to any corporate standard.

 

Do not construe this as legal advice but your argument appears to me to be philosophical rather than legal in nature.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Towelie.9504" said:

> Maybe ignore that suggestion because it wasn't a well throught out idea anyhow, but back to the point can we discuss matchups here assuming _it is moderated_

 

Read what she wrote again she already said that's not an option.

 

There is clearly no middle road here. We either get an unmoderated matchup forum or we get no matchup threads at all.

 

[Shroud.2307]

Just spit balling here but, how about adding another tab to the in game WvW panel - " cross server chat", a chat room that connects all currently matched servers. Have this option only available while **outside** of WvW in an attempt to prevent live manipulation (eg. "tell _server x_ we're moving to _tower y_ and _player a_ is commanding!") While outside of WvW, that information would only be available by using something like Discord or a separate account. The other benefit of doing this would be allowing time for players to cool off - if someone kills them and they want to use the cross server chat to flame about it, they would have to leave WvW to do so.

 

If anyone else has input on the drawbacks of such an option, feel free to share.

[ProverbsofHell.2307]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> >

> > > Ez fix label it nsfw and don't moderate it at all. Let people say whatever they're gonna say and let the warning label serve as an indicator to the softer of heart among us that that forum just isn't for them. It will be enormously entertaining for those of us who are not so easily offended and a great way for drama to exist outside the game.

> >

> > Tell me, do other companies do that? I can't think of a single one that allows their official, company-owned forum to go unmoderated on some level, to become the inevitable cesspool of personal attacks and defamation. Over 20+ years, I've seen a **lot** of fan-run forums come and go. Most are great and some of them are running after a decade and more. But those that had the "no holds barred" or the "you have been warned about being here" philosophy have each eventually fell into disuse when they became too unpleasant for even the most unpleasant of contributors to remain.

> >

> > In a non-moderated forum, you could have extremely offensive insults, threats of physical violence, doxing, and more. What company would take that on -- would even want to be associated with such a thing -- in the interests of satisfying a small segment of their overall community that wants to swim in the muck?

> >

> > If we're going to offer a forum, we want to have standards to try to keep it approachable and pleasant for the majority of members. I don't mean we'll link arms and waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, because sometimes that road is pretty covered in salt. :D But moderating the worst offenses is a good thing, in my opinion.

> >

> >

>

> Thats right but everything involves a trade off. The trade off for your moderation policy has been to leave many players feeling completely alienated from your company and to reduce the primal fun of a part of the product you're offering.

>

> You have restricted our ability to talk to one another however we want in part due to your concerns about the nastier side of human nature. You're not wrong people can be very unpleasant to one another. But the price of eliminating it entirely has been to eliminate one of the chief sources of emotional investment in a game mode like this.

>

> You may not see value in "rolling in the mud" but it is precisely that sort of drama that can give greater context to a video game that simulates war.

>

> On a philosophical level it doesn't matter what other companies do. It matters what you decide to do. You are not philosophically bound to adhere to any corporate standard.

>

> Do not construe this as legal advice but your argument appears to me to be philosophical rather than legal in nature.

 

Incredible post and eloquently put. Pretty much my (and people who agree) side of the argument.