Swagger.1459 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 > @"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. Arenanet has a business to run, and that business is not a babysitting service, nor one for anonymous online personalities to project their personal issues on others over an online fantasy game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDchiaScrub.3241 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Locker room banter is for locker rooms. Not forums. D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 > @"Israel.7056" said: > 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. How many players are alienating _from the company by not having a free-for-all (moderated or otherwise)? How many are alienating from the other players because of the free-for-all (moderated or otherwise)? > 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. For what fraction of players is this true? I think it might be a big thing for you (and clearly for others posting in this thread). But I've seen nothing to suggest that it's a primary factor for the vast majority of WvWarriors. During the heyday of the game mode, when passions were running strong, during the "any server but [they who shall be nameless]" matchups of the Season 1 & 2 contests... of all the people I knew ... only a tiny number participated in any match up threads. Of those who did, several said that they stopped doing so because it either got dull quickly or it got personal quickly. > 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. And yet nothing stops people from continuing to roll in the mud. ANet's just saying: "if you want to do that, fine; don't expect us to sponsor it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > How many players are alienating _from the company by not having a free-for-all (moderated or otherwise)? How many are alienating from the other players because of the free-for-all (moderated or otherwise)? There has never been a free for all. The forums have always been moderated. She's the one saying we can't get a moderated matchup thread I just suggested the obvious solution. > For what fraction of players is this true? I think it might be a big thing for you (and clearly for others posting in this thread). But I've seen nothing to suggest that it's a primary factor for the vast majority of WvWarriors. Most players don't even post. Of the ones who have continued to post here even after the excessive moderation over the years presumably most of them prefer a more tepid forum experience. They like the moderation, they like the mundanity of the discussions. But I remember how much fun and passionate the old matchup threads were and how engaged people got with them. Gaile even admitted they were enormously active forums. I don't know precisely what fraction of the players this was true for but I know that for the people who loved the old matchup threads they are greatly missed. > During the heyday of the game mode, when passions were running strong, during the "any server but [they who shall be nameless]" matchups of the Season 1 & 2 contests... of all the people I knew ... only a tiny number participated in any match up threads. Of those who did, several said that they stopped doing so because it either got dull quickly or it got personal quickly. Anecdotal. I know a lot of people who posted everyday in those threads and loved them. > ANet's just saying: "if you want to do that, fine; don't expect us to sponsor it." That would be fine except we can't even get a moderated version of the matchup threads so we can actually discuss the game on the official forums so most people, even the devs, have moved to the GW2 Reddit to get around the excessive moderation. Every single thread that even mentions a matchup gets removed, not just the ones that end up in name calling. To be clear I would be fine with a moderated matchup forum but Gaile just said that ain't happening. So we either get an unmoderated forum or we get no matchup threads at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oOStaticOo.9467 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Then I say we should get no Matchup Threads at all. There are children that play this game and may or may not come to these forums looking for advice on how to play. I for one, would not want my child coming here and being verbally abused by a salty player that lost to them because they had an off day or were at the wrong place at the wrong time. If you want to start your own webpage for people that want to verbally abuse and trash talk other players that want the same, then by all means go start one up and let everybody know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apharma.3741 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 > @"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. There were unofficial match up forums around...I would say your summary here reflects how it was in the unoffical forums the last time I saw it. Most of the time it was a salt mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Why not just do a version of what you already do in game? Add the matchup thread section to the forum and put a nsfw warning on it put a block and report feature on it and then ban people if they get reported for saying something that crosses the line between cross server banter and whatever you consider personal abuse. Adjust the length of the ban depending on the nature of the offence. We get matchup threads to discuss what's actually going on in game and a place for some mild "locker room talk" and you get a low cost way to moderate the most egregious offenders on that section of the forum. Win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArenaNet Staff Gaile Gray.6029 Posted February 5, 2019 ArenaNet Staff Share Posted February 5, 2019 > @"Israel.7056" said: > Why not just do a version of what you already do in game? > > Add the matchup thread section to the forum and put a nsfw warning on it put a block and report feature on it and then ban people if they get reported for saying something that crosses the line between cross server banter and whatever you consider personal abuse. Adjust the length of the ban depending on the nature of the offence. > > We get matchup threads to discuss what's actually going on in game and a place for some mild "locker room talk" and you get a low cost way to moderate the most egregious offenders on that section of the forum. > > Win-win. ~ I am reposting some thoughts because the forums were wonky when I first posted this. ~ From what I see in the suggestion, the concept is for us to host a forum, review/address reports, remove personal abuse, ban (which really means suspend in 99.99% of cases) those who break the rules, use a system of time-sensitive suspensions... But in fact that is **exactly** what we did in the past with the Match-Up Subforum, and what we do today with the current subforums. You know the saying: "This is why we can't have nice things?" To be direct: A number of the people who wanted that subforum, that avenue of conversation, weren't willing to do what it took to keep it. They failed to live up to reasonable standards of forum behavior. I'm not talking tough rules or a cruel, restrictive environment, either (although some people believe that *any* moderation or *any* post removal is draconian. ~shrug~). We tried a moderated forum -- the only kind we intend to offer -- and it was not successful. When the tiny match-up subforum took more than one-third of our total time -- for a single small subforum! -- we pulled the plug. The small number of people involved, the lack of focus on a thousand worthwhile threads because of the "elephant in the room," the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio, and the general lack of value of virtually any thread led to the closure of the sub-forum. I don't see it returning, but as I said earlier, I will ask about this in the future. The bottom line is that a "no moderation subforum" is not in the best interests of the community, the game, or the company and we do not have any interest in offering such a medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts