Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember I said in my list to "Be Brave"....
When a Dev or the CEO posts something in here that does not lead to the positive tenure of the forums as a community, we should point it out as such.
He has told people to "go make your own game, if you don't like it". He has called people names and frequently with words that can not be written without using symbols. He has driven many potential backers away with his comment that "Chaotic Evil will Suck", and those players are "a- holes".
You don't see Settlement Acheron around anymore, do you? That was 11 potential players.
Be brave enough to say, "If you want this to be a non toxic community, you yourself can not inject toxicity into it."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ ALL Don't Say any Alignment is Prone to be a%~!%%$sTo the extent that this is Ryan's stated message, and to the extent that he hasn't given us clear instructions not to spread this message, I think it's perfectly reasonable to continue pointing it out, and will do so.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.
You get to be Chaotic Evil by ganking people, betraying people, and generally acting like an a*~+&!$.
How do you ensure that your good PC doesn't get ganked by the kinds of a*$+@$#s who live in the places your CE character lives?
I keep saying, and people keep not hearing, that LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes. CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a**!$*#s.
I hear, in that, that Chaotic Evil is the alignment where a@#$%^es end up, not that Chaotic Evil consists only of those a@#$%^es. They'll be one more cross to bear for legitimate players who want to forge ahead on the tough road of playing that alignment, should they choose it.
Given that, I think it might indeed be counter-productive to equate the alignment with the behaviour in a general sense. It seems sufficient to let the behaviour(s) describe the a@#$%^es without any other label.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5. Be critical of CEO / Dev responses that also violate these behaviors.
Not sure I can back you on this one. Paizo pays for these boards, and that makes them, in Orwellian terms, "more equal than others".
They can, as far as I'm concerned, both set and break the rules here, and then I make a decision about whether to support them with my money. It's also their choice to accept or reject players--or potential players--as they choose, and they'll deal with any consequences, meaningful or otherwise, of their choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Jazzlvraz
It is also important to note that Stephen Cheney came in and did some damage control , and added / reiterated the CE + Low Rep will be very difficult to deal with, not just CE by itself.
@Nihimon
Of course I did not expect you to agree with #5. I do believe it does reflect poorly on where you stand on the supposed "Soul of the Community" topic. If we accept toxicity from some and not others, the tenure of the forum community will be toxic.
There is nothing more toxic then hypocritical leadership, in my opinion. That is based on years of military service, working in positions of authority in educational departments, and holding elected positions.
A community's tenure is most impacted by its leadership's tenure.
Be brave to point out hypocrisy or your own credibility is at risk, as a leading voice in this community.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding definitions: I'm going to assert that the precedent "I can;t define it, but I know it when I see it." is appropriate.
That would make it mean that reasonable people might disagree, but we already have a clear authority on the matter- Goblinworks. Everyone else's opinions on the domain definition are correct so far as they agree with Goblinworks', and incorrect so far as they disagree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
Of course I did not expect you to agree with #5. I do believe it does reflect poorly on where you stand on the supposed "Soul of the Community" topic. If we accept toxicity from some and not others, the tenure of the forum community will be toxic.
Not only do I not agree with it, I think it would actually contribute to the toxic tenor we all want to avoid.
I believe that being combative with new posters or with the devs/mods/owners is toxic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
Of course I did not expect you to agree with #5. I do believe it does reflect poorly on where you stand on the supposed "Soul of the Community" topic. If we accept toxicity from some and not others, the tenure of the forum community will be toxic.
Not only do I not agree with it, I think it would actually contribute to the toxic tenor we all want to avoid.
I believe that being combative with new posters or with the devs/mods/owners is toxic.
I did not suggest being combative. I suggested we address examples of toxic tenure with the following:
"I think you should know that that type of a response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums."
Feel free to suggest a different wording, but the tenure of the quote is meant to be instructional.
If we have a new poster comes here for the purpose of "trolling" the game, we simply say: "I think you should know that that type of a response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums."
It is a very simple, declarative statement, that in itself has no ambiguity and is not combative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He has told people to "go make your own game, if you don't like it". He has called people names and frequently with words that can not be written without using symbols. He has driven many potential backers away with his comment that "Chaotic Evil will Suck", and those players are "a- holes".
I think that trying to publicly indict the CEO of the company, as you did in the quote above, is being "combative".
I believe that is toxic.
I think you should know that that type of a response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, lots of stuff to go through :)
First things first :) Welcome, Bravura Khan and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us
________________________________________________________________________
Regarding your Definitions Bludd
Griefer: i can get behind this.
Question: why highlevel? what about someone who creates a highest combatpotential in shortest time beginners build and "harvests" noobs near the starter towns?
Additions:
- someone who is verbaly abusive in any way.
- Laughing it/bashing someone for loosing a fight
- teabagging.
Care Bear: ;) i think i feel your dislike for this behaviour here.
How about this: Someone who is mainly PVE interessted and not interessted in/trying to avoid PVP?
Regarding the behaviou you mentioned here, i may have another idea, more to this later.
Ganker: i´m ok with that. And i think most people don´t have a problem with this. what paints the ganker in a negativ light are the suicide gankers. for the non-eve players according to the eve online wiki is:
"Suicide ganking" refers to the practice of intentionally attacking enemies in high-security space, with the expectation of losing one's ship to Concord. Some targets have very valuable items equipped and/or very valuable items in their cargo, and killing them and recovering the items that are dropped will pay for the costs incurred in losing the ships necessary to kill it. Concord response times are longer in lower-sec systems, so suicide ganking is generally most profitable in 0.5.
this is speculative of course but i can imagine similar tactics for PFO.
like a high alpha strike killing squad and a non-combatant looter.
This may not be griefing, but i would like to define this as bad-sportmanship.
And this category is were i would like to put the behaviour you mentioned under Carebear.
Bad sportsmanships: a list of behaviour the community agrees is unwanted here and that is universaly discouraged.
intolerant of a%~!%%$s: an a%~!%%$s, is a griefer is defined by the community or someone who consistendly shows Bad sportsmanship
lastly, i understand why you left motivation/intend out of your definition, but i also see Nihimons point.
But as we probably wont have the means to know someone elses intent unless they state it somewhere i think a neutral definition is a good base for us to work from.
this is it from me for now.
________________________________________________________________________
I don´t think that the directions has changed, but maybe the focus has.
My hope would be taht, if we create a good code of conduct for the forum and keep it up till EE, that we will be able to continue using it in the game as well.
As i said, that´s what i hope and wish for, only time will tell.
There has to be some acknowledgement that certain words or phrases trigger strong responses. There is also a difference between saying something is "like" and saying something "is".
-agreed.
2. Answer the person's questions about the game in an unbiased manner, "just the facts please, just the facts".
3. If that person begins with a negative comment, towards the game or an individual, correct that new poster and explain, this is not the forum atmosphere we wish to have.
i would like to add this. We should consider that quiet a few people who came here had bad experiences regarding pvp. some lurk first and read some stuff, if they happen to read a hotly debated pvp-thread first. Add to this that a lot probably love Pathfinder TT and would like to love PFO too. -I think if you lokk at it <--this way, one can understand that the first couple of post might be done under a lot of emotion and stress and it might take some time to get them to calm done and listen/read.
i would like to see that, as andius suggested before, if someone gets annoyed by this, he leaves the talking to those who have more patience for this.nothing to add to 1&4
to 5. i haven´t read a dev-post like that, or at least i can´t remember, but i think we should hold them to the same standards as ourselfs.
________________________________________________________________________
Final note: The Soul of the Community is not black or white, it is diversity.
Be Welcoming
Be A Good Visitor
Be Helpful
Be Instructive
Be Firm
Be Open
Be Honest
Be Brave
ahh:) a code of conduct. i like it. i think an important one is missing
be respectful
________________________________________________________________________
Final, Final note....
We need a shorthand code for when someone violates one of these... A "23 - 19" of sorts....
why not, but don´t look at me.
________________________________________________________________________Finaly, i would like to thank anyone working on this.
imho this is really important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... [about Bluddwolf] as you say yourself you are one of the most vocal/passionate pro-pvp people on the forum.For the record, and because there seems to be a concerted effort to equate "anti-meaningless PvP" with being "anti-PvP", I want to point out that I have been a very consistent pro-PvP voice as well.
And when Bluddwolf was trying to give Realmwalker an honest and accurate picture of PFO, I backed him up completely on the points that were actually honest and accurate:
I just wish he, or even some of his defenders, would do me the favor of backing me up in the honest and accurate points I added.* Yes, you can flag or unflag PvP but not being flagged for PvP does not protect you from being the victim of a PvP attack. It just means that the attacker will incur the negative hit to reputation and possibly to alignment ( depends on the alignment of the attacker).
* No there will be no PvE only server.
* This is an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO, that will have just one server and no complete way to shield yourself from unwanted PvP. If you are unwilling to change and play in a game with those facts, you are best served to continue your search elsewhere.
.
I would also add:
* PvP in PFO will be significantly different than any PvP experience you've had in other MMOs.
* Goblinworks is making great efforts to ensure that players in PFO are not subjected to griefing.
I would back you on these points if they turn out to be true. At best they are "planned" or even "hoped for", but they are speculative at this time.
I would modify those to say:
PvP in PFO is planned to be (significantly) different, than any PvP experience you've had in other MMOs.
Goblinworks is making (great) efforts to limit the amount of griefing that players in PFO will be subjected to.
These two statements would no longer be speculative in nature, but actually, factual. They are declarative statements of intent, not promises or hopes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wow, nearly a whole new page while i composed my answer.
I hear, in that, that Chaotic Evil is the alignment where a@#$%^es end up, not that Chaotic Evil consists only of those a@#$%^es. They'll be one more cross to bear for legitimate players who want to forge ahead on the tough road of playing that alignment, should they choose it.
That´s what i believe too.
That is how reputation and alignment are supposed to work, as far as i understood it.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would back you on these points if they turn out to be true. At best they are "planned" or even "hoped for", but they are speculative at this time.
They are no more speculative than that the game will contain Escalations that can grow large enough to threaten Settlements.
I would modify those to say:
PvP in PFO is planned to be (significantly) different, than any PvP experience you've had in other MMOs.
Goblinworks is making (great) efforts to limit the amount of griefing that players in PFO will be subjected to.
These two statements would no longer be speculative in nature, but actually, factual.
If that is true, then we should also be careful to say:
- PFO is planning to have Open PvP;
- PFO is planning to have Escalations;
- PFO is planning to have player-controlled Settlements.
Or perhaps we can just accept Ryan's consistent message:
Before we begin, a quick disclaimer: The ideas in this blog are subject to change based on feedback, testing, and further creativity on the part of the game designers. What we're sharing with you now is the starting point for our design, which represents a lot of our strategic thinking—but real-world development and testing may lead us down a different path!
Yes, everything we know so far about PFO is "planned". Even the code that's already been written, and the art assets that have already been built, are subject to change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon,
With a year before EE, and then another 18 months or so after that until OE.... Anything is possible... including PFO being vaporware.
I remember about 6 years ago, a house was being built at the end of my block. It had a foundation and walls, no roof on the top floor, for nearly two years, and it sat like that. It was bought out by a bank and torn down. The land was sold and is still vacant, these passed 4 or so years.
Scary as this sounds, you just never know, until the roof is on and the doors are opened.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd, i understand your scepticism.
But if we tread everything as speculative we might as wel quite our forum activity and just wait and see then.
But what happens to crowdforging then?
wouldn´t it make more sense to talk about the game as intended, as in based of the devblogs?
i mean, really, if we don´t do it that way, whats the point?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
My point is that it's unnecessary to qualify the plans you referenced as being speculative. If you want to argue that those plans are more speculative than others, you are absolutely free to do that. But I think there are a lot of us who think those plans are so fundamental to the design that they're actually less speculative than most of the others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you trust that the developers are working to limit abusive game play, and they do not code it, then you must assume they did not consider it to be abusive.If the moderators or developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, by definition that action is not "abusive".But if the developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, it just means that there isn't an in-game mechanic. The absence of code doesn't make an action abusive or not abusive; it's just an absence of code.
Sorry for dredging this up from the last page, but you seem quite certain here that anything not coded is permitted. I think you're wrong. Only in a game like EVE where the devs have stated that anything is fair can we assume that no code means something is permitted. To my knowledge, PFO hasn't made such a statement.
Counter to your example: In Wurm, some cheaters found a way to modify the client to change the terrain in a way that significantly boosted visibility, which aided in hunting, skill gain, and possibly combat.
For a while, the developer was unaware. So there was no code preventing it. From your statement, because there was no code, it wasn't an abuse of the game.
When the dev was alerted to the altered clients, it took time (months) to find a way to detect it, then to recode the official client to detect the alteration and compile a list of cheaters. In the time between when the dev was aware and made noises about not cheating, and the time he had code, by your statement there was no abuse.
My example was an alteration of the client code, but people in MMOs often find existing gaps in the code and exploit the heck out of them until it is discover. That's an abuse of the system as well.
Abuse is abuse, even if devs aren't aware, even if there is no code.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't be drawn into a debate over what is fundamental or not, the easy middle ground is to just leave it at.... "Anything can be changed". ... For everyone there will be "Fundementals and Insignificants" and there will be no changing of minds on those.
So your point of view is "everything i open to change" and you don´t wnat to discuss this?
i´m asking to make sure i got you right.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He has told people to "go make your own game, if you don't like it". He has called people names and frequently with words that can not be written without using symbols. He has driven many potential backers away with his comment that "Chaotic Evil will Suck", and those players are "a- holes".I think that trying to publicly indict the CEO of the company, as you did in the quote above, is being "combative".
I believe that is toxic.
I think you should know that that type of a response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums.
But this is your opinion of what he is doing - that he is being combative or toxic. I believe he sees it as holding Ryan and the Devs to the same standards of forum civility that you wish to hold the community to. His position seems to be that if Ryan and GW want us to be civil to new and current posters, they should be setting the example. This is a difference of opinion between what you and he call combative and toxic.
It is also an example of what I have been worrying about through this whole thread - of what potentially may happen when attempting to outline acceptable standard of behavior and what won't be tolerated can potentially go too far. Two recent posts to contrast:
A page earlier, you seemed to very much agree with this statement from Bravura Khan:
Bravura Khan wrote:
Bad things begin with most group that try to limit other persons freedom to speak with pressure of many.
However, in your reply to Bludd's post (where you believe he is being combative and toxic), your last sentence invokes the "we" of the entire community - "I think you should know that that type of response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums."
But who is the "we" you speak of in this particular case, since the entire community may not agree with you. At least two posters (TEO's Papaver and Gedichtewicht) already agreed with Bludd that Ryan and the Devs should be held to the same standards.
My point is this...we need to be very careful of invoking (or believing we have the authority to invoke) the community ban-hammer simply because we disagree with another poster, otherwise, this will lead to the concern I expressed earlier in this thread:
"Honestly, sometimes that is what these efforts degenerate into - a select few who really just want to control everyone not like them in a game."
This last part should be taken how it was meant (both times I've written it) - as a reminder to us all, not as an accusation of intent aimed at any one person or group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman,
I did not consider the original comment related to there being a lack of awareness of he activity. I assumed the Devs were aware and did not develop a code to stop the behavior.
Hacking the code is always cheating, wether the Devs know it or not. Cheaters should be banned and Devs that enable cheating (CCP and BOB) should be fired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may not be griefing, but i would like to define this as bad-sportmanship.
Bad sportsmanships: a list of behaviour the community agrees is unwanted here and that is universaly discouraged.
I wanted to highlight this, because I think it's a central to dev intent, moderation, and player behavior.
In pro sports, there are referees to identify rule violations. If the referees don't do their job, then the game degenerates with more fouls, cheating, and unsportsmanlike conduct. The players should not be expected to police themselves without developer/moderator (referee) overwatch - and real in-game consequence for poor behavior.
Just glancing at the NFL penalty list - unsportsmanlike conduct and taunting appear to be treated very seriously: 15 yard penalties. Yes, it's not always caught, but when it is, that's a significant hit.
If PFO wants the game to be somewhat civil, I think they need to take a position on unsportsmanlike behavior and have penalties to back it up. In my personal view, they should to limit taunting as well - at some level. Ryan once had an example of painting over graffiti on subway cars. If he doesn't want graffiti, he needs to be prepared to stop it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is also an example of what I have been worrying about through this whole thread - of what potentially may happen when attempting to outline acceptable standard of behavior and what won't be tolerated can potentially go too far.
So, just to be clear: My point is that if you give people a rule about what is or isn't permitted in social interaction, some folks will treat that as a license to act out in harmful ways right up to the very edge of that line, and if they go over a bit to plead ignorance/passion/misimpression/etc. .
*********************************************************************
But who is the "we" you speak of in this particular case...
My hope when I made that statement was to rally the community to my position. If the community instead wishes to express that it is acceptable for Bluddwolf to try to publicly indict the CEO and encourage other posters to also be combative with the devs/mods/owners, then I hope the community would speak up and make that clear.
But please don't get too caught up on the literal language in that quote, since it was simply the exact statement Bluddwolf suggested we use when we encounter something we don't approve of.
Say the same thing that you would say to anyone. "I think you should know that that type of a response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums."
If you have a problem with the literal language of that statement, perhaps you should take it up with the person who actually proposed we - each one of us, individually, without any consideration for first determining if the entire community agreed with us - use that exact quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Declaring certain activities as "unsportsmanlike" and having the community condemn them, is a slippery slope and should not be supported, IMO.
That will lead to having different rules for different people. I have already seen ideas of certain segments of the community, given second class citizenship, simply for the sake of alignment choice or for being part of a PC settlement, as opposed to not being attached to one ( IE. NPC settlement).
I'm only concerned about activities that GW says violates the rules of the game. Even then, it is GW's responsibility to punish it or code it out of the possibility of doing it. If they know it and do nothing, that is tacit approval of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Declaring certain activities as "unsportsmanlike" and having the community condemn them, is a slippery slope and should not be supported, IMO.
It works for the NFL and other sport leagues, but what do I know. *shrugs*
I'm only concerned about activities that GW says violates the rules of the game. Even then, it is GW's responsibility to punish it or code it out of the possibility of doing it. If they know it and do nothing, that is tacit approval of it.
I agree with this. It's basic leadership - if there is something 'wrong' and you do nothing, then you tacitly accept it. PF and PFO will hopefully provide more guidance as to what is within the rule and spirit of the game before EE begins. Understandably they'll need some leeway - rules lawyers will just work around many rules that are too specific. I do think that PFOs enforcement of the game spirit and rules in EE is critical - if rule breaking is tolerated early on it will just become part of the game ethos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I am not understood by some. My feeling is there is no King here only moderator. The first post looks like campaign for posters clan and self. Position is better define now and not bad in most ways. Except it is toxic to demand other poster apologize and not post his feeling on things. This is wrong to gather base to crush other posters belief. It is wrong and there is no power even with base if moderator does not give power. Only many that suppress few. It happen this way many times in many places. It is to far.
To much pride. Lower pride and look at mirror. There is danger here in to much pride.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe I am not understood by some. My feeling is there is no King here only moderator. The first post looks like campaign for posters clan and self. Position is better define now and not bad in most ways. Except it is toxic to demand other poster apologize and not post his feeling on things. This is wrong to gather base to crush other posters belief. It is wrong and there is no power even with base if moderator does not give power. Only many that suppress few. It happen this way many times in many places. It is to far.
To much pride. Lower pride and look at mirror. There is danger here in to much pride.
Right now I bet there is a certain someone yelling...
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!!!! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!!!!
In his defense, sometimes the written word does not relay the tone that was meant. But, there is also the possibility that they accidentally reveal too much, and then can't walk back their comments.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a rule or definition is better than playing by ear in my opinion. Especially when the criteria is so subjective.
For Example, Pax Gaming does define what we consider griefing in our charter:
6.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE): Players have a right to be free from griefing. While most online games are about war, the Pax Gaming Community is against the griefing of other players. In addition to the harassment and verbal abuse rules, Pax members will conduct themselves with the utmost honor in all aspects of the game related to PVP combat. This includes the ban on the initiation of combat on zoning or link-dead opponents as shown in the practice of corpse camping, graveyard camping, or the like. PVP combat between different levels (i.e. higher level player attacking a lower level player) or different numbers (i.e. 10 players attacking 3 players) is considered standard PVP tactics that regularly occur within the rules of fair-play. Pax will not ally or go to war with any guild who does not agree to our rules of engagement. As a no-drama guild our policy is to avoid griefing players (or get back at them with superior numbers and firepower), than to complain and engage with them in any argument about fair-play. Therefore, in certain situations turn-about is fair play when that is the predominant tactic being used by the opposition, but generally such activities are not the rule.
Our charter gets reviewed and edited no less than once a year. Can people manipulate the rule to suit their needs? Sure, those situations are rare and have never been a reason for us to just not have a charter.
In the same way, if you want my support in calling out abusive behavior, I need to know what you mean by abusive.
We disagree a lot on these forums, and I see no indication that other peoples considerations of detrimental behavior are taken into account.
Not long ago Pax asked for others not to snipe members from our recruitment threads. One of our members came forward and admitted we had done the same. By the end of that day we had an apology written on these boards for the behavior as well as a warning written on our own. We don't ask others to do what we ourselves will not do.
Not once did someone outside of Pax come to support us in that opinion, and we were told at least once to just get over it.
Don't get me wrong, that never angered me. It is an example of something we considered unacceptable behavior that others did not.
So we stand by it as an organization, regardless of community opinion. I by no means fault any organization for doing similar. If you want all of us to stand united, then I would venture as far as to say other peoples definitions matter. Other peoples concerns should be considered valid enough for consideration.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon: Great contribution with this thread. +1
GW has a good basis to improve the quality of the community:
1. Limited players - increase signal to noise ratio
2. Invested players - increase signal strength
3. High Dev/Player interaction - fine tuning!
I think the more experience all EE players can bring to that state of the game, the more positive the 3. (aka crowdforging?) will be?
So I suspect that is one way to improve the community's role as well as codes of conduct which rightly (this thread) help a group organize around agreed social norms - as a basis to get anything productive done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My hope when I made that statement was to rally the community to my position. If the community instead wishes to express that it is acceptable for Bluddwolf to try to publicly indict the CEO and encourage other posters to also be combative with the devs/mods/owners, then I hope the community would speak up and make that clear.
But you are still limiting the choice of answer by your choice of phrasing. Your presented choices are to either agree that Bludd was "publicly indicting" Ryan and being combative with the deves/mods/owners and it was a bad thing to do so, or that his "publicly indicting" Ryan and being combative with the deves/mods/owners is alright. It's like asking "Do you still beat your wife?" Stating either yes or no forces you to admit you were beating her at some point in time. Where is the "I never did beat her," choice? In this case, where is the choice of viewing Bludd's post as neither publicly indicting nor combative? If you believe Ryan and other GW employees should be held to the same standard as the community, and you believe there has been an example of them not living up to that standard, how would you present that case without presenting the evidence? As someone who apparently values a paper trail, I hope you would want people to present the evidence of their claim. Should they do so via a less public method, such as PMs sent to the people at fault - possibly - but that can often result in the person at fault simply ignoring the PM and the impetus to change the behavior.
My hope is that GW would want to present themselves as our example by living up to the standards of behavior that they expect from us. Likewise, I hope that they would want us to be honest enough and caring enough about the reputation of this game and its community to let them know if they have posted something that was being perceived as not in keeping with those standards.
None of this is said because I do not respect members of GW, that I want to see them dragged through the mud, I have an ax to grind, or I just like being combative. Rather, I have great respect for GW and what they are attempting to create for all of us. My respect, however, would be diminished if I learned they did, indeed, expect us to accept a double standard that allowed them to ignore the same standards of civility that they expect us to follow on these boards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's going to be difficult to define any rules of behavior. The games design is such that there are not enough resources to support everyone's goals. It's going to get nasty.
Any such rules should be common sense and those that don't already know them won't be likely to follow them just because we wrote them down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Declaring certain activities as "unsportsmanlike" and having the community condemn them, is a slippery slope and should not be supported, IMO.And yet, this is exactly what Ryan has tasked us to do.
Then I respectfully disagree with Ryan. I do not think such a plan is feasible, or desirable.
When everyone's concerns and definitions are taken into account, I might change my mind. At current it can too easily be used as an instrument for a minority of players to police a majority.
If we are only calling out specific instances of unacceptable behavior, but largely ignoring others then the solution is the problem. The crusade is what will be toxic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there were to be a community statement of standards that everyone could agree to in principle, what would they look like?
I could agree to the following:
1.Don't refer to fellow posters as troll, griefer, carebear, or any normally derogatory term.
2. Don't tell any player (new or old, regardless of playstyle) to leave the game. Saying that the game might not be for them, followed by the reasons why, should be acceptable.
3. Don't snipe other kingdom / alliance / CC threads.
4. Don't represent another kingdom / alliance / CC . Let them represent themselves.
5. 1-4 are rules relevant to forum activity only.
((Edited #4 to increase scope))
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
I see you have replied since my last post that was a direct reply to you. Knowing that I often take forever typing, editing, and rereading my own posts, I'm certainly not expecting immediate quality feedback, but when you get a chance, I would like to read your response.
Thank you in advance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should hold Goblinworks to the same standards we hold ourselves to. That said, we should handle it via private messages. Public battles with Devs never end well and don't look good to the world at large. But if you send a PM, explaining your concern with a particular post and how it might come across, you can both deal with the situation *and* have a good appearance to the public.
Just my two cents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure not everyone will agree, but I'd extend the "don't be a jerk" rule/guideline.
I was once told that one line that can be drawn with respect to potentially abusive language: There are personal attacks like "You're stupid. You suck." and situational statements, "This is stupid. This sucks." Discouraging personal attacks might be useful for encouraging civil behavior and keeping tempers down to a low boil.
I also understand that taunting seems to be a key part of PvP (it isn't just about the thrill of combat for some). I'd suggest, if only for my own personal amusement, that archaic-speak taunts should be permitted: "You fighteth like a maiden fair", while modern taunts should be discouraged: "Yeah, your mom..."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd suggest, if only for my own personal amusement, that archaic-speak taunts should be permitted: "You fighteth like a maiden fair", while modern taunts should be discouraged: "Yeah, your mom..."
Does that allow or disallow, "You mother was a hamster and your father smellt of elderberries?" :)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If there were to be a community statement of standards that everyone could agree to in principle, what would they look like?I could agree to the following:
1.Don't refer to fellow posters as troll, griefer, carebear, or any normally derogatory term.
2. Don't tell any player (new or old, regardless of playstyle) to leave the game. Saying that the game might not be for them, followed by the reasons why, should be acceptable.
3. Don't snipe other kingdom / alliance / CC threads.
4. Don't represent another kingdom / alliance / CC . Let them represent themselves.
5. 1-4 are rules relevant to forum activity only.
((Edited #4 to increase scope))
Those are much more specific, and are clearly based on patching specific events. It seems like there are a few general principles that underlie those suggestions, but I want to avoid putting words in your mouth.
I don't understand a basis for point 5 that I approve of; why exclude other forms of communication?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
I see you have replied since my last post that was a direct reply to you. Knowing that I often take forever typing, editing, and rereading my own posts, I'm certainly not expecting immediate quality feedback, but when you get a chance, I would like to read your response.
Thank you in advance.
I did not intend to give the impression I was providing an exhaustive list of opinions the community was permitted to express.
I stand by my assessment of the behavior in question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At current it can too easily be used as an instrument for a minority of players to police a majority.How so? No one is asking for any "police" powers.
I have expressed my opinion that certain very specific acts were not acceptable, and asked the community to back me up on that.
I understand.
I think the community is in the processing of responding with their honest opinions.
The subject alternates between these specific events and "the soul of our community". We are told the two are inseparable. If that is true then other instances of deemed unacceptable behavior are applicable.