I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.Is that really the only part of my post that you got?
But many are spouting just that. Many of the posts that I was responding to were not about removing/reprimanding blatant jerks, but about wording and inflection.
An example I have seen many times is BlackBloodTroll - without speaking for him, I have seen quite a few times where his posts have been read as rude and baiting whereas he was just making a point without going into an APA style report to ensure proper etiquette.
Just 30 seconds ago I saw a post from Jiggy stating that a person should not say something to the effect of, "Paizo doesn't think monks should be able to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists" and should say something to the effect of, "There is no way to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists."
That is what I meant by trying to make the internet nicer. The original poster didn't say anything mean, condescending or even slightly untrue.
Sorry, that was just the part that stuck out that I responded to. I got the rest of it, just wanted to address that line.
Your explanation makes sense and expands on how hard it can be to moderate or even flag posts -- what offends you or I may not be the same for them, or for a mod. What I believe is jerk-like behavior might not fit the parameters the mods use.
Hey guys, I'd rather we stuck to coming up with ideas to improve the situation, rather than turning this into a heated debate. There are some really good suggestions and valid points made here so far, though I haven't been able to respond directly to some just yet. I can say that: we're likely not going to have additional mods to handle spam (especially since we now have a new tool to deal with them), we're not super keen on editing posts as a method of moderation (we feel like it's counter intuitive to positive interactions within the community and we'd rather not alter the words that other people have said), and we have no plans for an ignore feature. I agree that we could be more transparent in some areas.
Can you whap people with a frying pan then? Three pages of "Nuh uh you smell bad and are stupid" "Nu uh YOU smell and are stupid AND don't know the rules!" is silly. That goes beyond flagging each post, that's 2-10 people behaving badly. Removing their posts, as others have mentioned, doesn't stop the problem. Most know that they are going to have the post removed and are getting their hits in before they get pulled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another comment I'd make is that it's relatively common to see someone make an objectionable post together with a phrase like "this is going to be deleted, but I'll post it anyhow".
I can't take that as anything other than deliberately breaking the rules. I dont think carefully worded explanations as to why posts are deleted are going to stop that behaviour, personally.
I can't take that as anything other than deliberately breaking the rules. I dont think carefully worded explanations as to why posts are deleted are going to stop that behaviour, personally.
That's two different problems though - one is posters who get their posts deleted and don't know why (which is fixed by a more detailed explanation for why posts are being deleted) , and the other problem is posters deliberately breaking the rules.
For the latter type of poster, that's be where the theoretical infraction system comes in.
With current policy, the entire post gets removed. Somewhat frustrating if you made an off-hand remark to something that needed to be scrubbed in the same post you just finished writing your thesis on why Rogues are UP or whatever.I accept your argument about subjectivisim and not initially understanding where the line is, however that's true in any subculture/social group - it takes time to learn what's socially acceptable.
Nonetheless, the frustration you mention here is entirely in the hands of the poster. Once you do learn where the line is, you can avoid this frustration by not making the off-hand remark that needs to be scrubbed.
I dont think this is a good argument against the current policy of deletion-over-editting, since it encourages laziness on the part of those who habitually break the rules - they can continue making off-hand, snide remarks and know that someone will go through sifting out whatever is objectionable, rather than taking the time to learn the (clearly subjective) rules themselves.
You miss my point.
The off-hand remark is not something rude on YOUR part, but is something that is deleted because it QUOTED something that was then scrubbed. It happens a fair bit, and it's pretty hard to predict when it will happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps just more frequent 24-hour-type suspensions would be better than a more formal infraction system?
My fear for X-strikes (or yellow card/red card) systems is that they tell jerks that they can push their luck to badge 24.
With current policy, the entire post gets removed. Somewhat frustrating if you made an off-hand remark to something that needed to be scrubbed in the same post you just finished writing your thesis on why Rogues are UP or whatever.I accept your argument about subjectivisim and not initially understanding where the line is, however that's true in any subculture/social group - it takes time to learn what's socially acceptable.
Nonetheless, the frustration you mention here is entirely in the hands of the poster. Once you do learn where the line is, you can avoid this frustration by not making the off-hand remark that needs to be scrubbed.
I dont think this is a good argument against the current policy of deletion-over-editting, since it encourages laziness on the part of those who habitually break the rules - they can continue making off-hand, snide remarks and know that someone will go through sifting out whatever is objectionable, rather than taking the time to learn the (clearly subjective) rules themselves.
You miss my point.
The off-hand remark is not something rude on YOUR part, but is something that is deleted because it QUOTED something that was then scrubbed. It happens a fair bit, and it's pretty hard to predict when it will happen.
No I got it (though I was extending the point).
I dont find it hard to predict. I think it can be learned.
I don't think it can. The criterion for removal are so general that it'll happen eventually no matter what you do.
Hell, it'll sometimes happen as collateral damage for when two conversations are being held at the same time, one being suddenly declared off-topic and several PAGES of discussion disappearing overnight.
I can't take that as anything other than deliberately breaking the rules. I dont think carefully worded explanations as to why posts are deleted are going to stop that behaviour, personally.That's two different problems though - one is posters who get their posts deleted and don't know why (which is fixed by a more detailed explanation for why posts are being deleted) , and the other problem is posters deliberately breaking the rules.
Yeah, I figured this thread was mainly about objectionable posters, not about confusion amongst new posters as they learn the rules.
I'm not too stressed about the first group - we've all been there and you learn pretty quickly that quoting an obnoxious post or making reference to illegal practises can get your benign post deleted. I dont think that's much of a problem that needs solving in a well functioning community (which I think the messageboards generally are).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think 24-hour-type suspensions by themselves is going to solve "the hater problem". It means the dedicated troll gets a good night's rest and is eager to unleash as much vitriol as possible in one go before he gets another temp ban.
In my experience infraction systems seem to work well alongside temporary (or permanent) bans, though I also think the mod should be allowed to set aside the system if he feels a poster is causing enough aggravation. It's not three strikes. It's meant to be an aid, not a limitation.
However I also think a moderator should be able to ask posters to refrain from posting in specific threads if he feels they're repeatedly dragging it off-course.
I've seen polite and good natured threads turn into hate fests overnight when one or two posters with a lot of vitriol show up. After a few warnings the thread usually ends up getting locked, which is a shame.
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the best solution is to actually permanently suspending people who've
* had 20 or more posts removed because of their original content (i.e., not counting posts that were removed because they quoted a problem post),
* been temporarily suspended three or more times, or
* have been a habitual problem to such an extent that other mods were told, "if this person acts up again, permanently suspend them," and have acted up again since then, but still weren't suspended for some reason.
I get the philosophy of "a message board is a garden, be a gardener, not a police officer."
But I lived in Seattle's U District. There's a community garden there where people can sign up for a plot and grow vegetables. And handling problems there as a "gardener" works just fine if everyone is there to garden and nurture crops, and if your potato sprouts end up encroaching on my cucumbers, I can get your sprouts trimmed so they don't interfere with my part of the garden. But there are scuzzy people in the U District. There are some people who come to the community garden, and they're rude and insulting to the gardeners, they trample on crops, and they urinate on crops. So what you end up with is not a garden, but a toilet. These scuzzy people not only ruin everyone's crops, they ruin the garden itself, and make all the good gardeners (the ones with good advice for new would-be gardeners) leave.
When those scuzzy people show up, you call the cops to stop them. You don't treat them like gardeners. There are people on these boards who don't care that they're poisoning this community, and all Paizo does is hide their posts.
There are posters here who've
* called other posters "cowardly" or "an absolute moron."
* said the design team is "drunk and overstepping" because they disagree with a FAQ ruling, or that they're "lying to your face," or that they "don't understand the 3.5 rules."
* created a sock puppet account after their main account was suspended, and continued to post in the thread their real account was posting in.
All five of the above people are still active on Paizo.com, despite multiple warnings and temporary suspensions. Warning them and temporarily suspending them hasn't done any good. There are people repeatedly vandalizing other peoples' threads and repeatedly harassing other posters. Why are they still here? Why do you still allow them to post here?
If I were given the power to permanently suspend ten people from the boards (people who I probably should have suspended when I was an employee and could still see the dozens of posts that were removed by moderators), it would not only take care of the biggest "problem children," it would send a message to other potential "problem children" that Paizo actually takes this sort of behavior seriously. And if giving me the power to do so meant that I would be permanently banned from Paizo.com, and from all future freelance from Paizo, I would still jump at the chance to make this change. Because despite all the arguments I've had with people about rules and other issues, I still care about this community, and I hate what it has become.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were given the power to permanently suspend ten people from the boards
I almost sent a private message asking for a list, so that I could pre-load it in the ignore script.
Why must Ethics be such a cruel master? :-(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
we have no plans for an ignore feature.The perfect opening for a shameless self-plug ... must ... resist...
[dice=Will Save]1d20
So, there is this great plugin for Mozilla Firefox that adds a client-side Ignore feature for any users that are interested.
Saving this from bottom-of-the-page purgatory =)
Rest of the reply in a new post, since I've learned my lesson about putting anything vaguely controversial in a post I spent more than 5 minutes writing.
See? People can adhere to policies, if they try.
Perhaps the best solution is to actually permanently suspending people who've
* had 20 or more posts removed because of their original content (i.e., not counting posts that were removed because they quoted a problem post),
* been temporarily suspended three or more times, or
* have been a habitual problem to such an extent that other mods were told, "if this person acts up again, permanently suspend them," and have acted up again since then, but still weren't suspended for some reason.
I've been on boards moderated like that, and for whatever reason, they end up becoming completely terrible. Policy becomes one of the hungriest endeavors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has frequented both the Shadowrun and GURPS forums in addition to the Paizo ones, I have to say that this community is far more angry than the other two.
Well, unless you mention War! on Dumpshock. But at that point you're just asking for trouble.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in ye olde days when I modded at a place, one of our biggest problems was 'needling'. We saw a lot of very clever posters skirt the edges of the rules to upset others and cause them to blow up, and eventually had to add Needling to the infraction system. I know the mods here aren't full time and have other jobs, but it's a good idea to look at why people start foaming at the mouth.
+1,000,000
There are a few people who know that they're riling people up and are saying what they're saying for that exact purpose, but who are also smart enough to use the rules to protect themselves while they're at it. Let's ensure that future implementation of forum etiquette takes these lawful evil types into account as well.
I think the problem is that the moderation policies /philosophies are that of a company that's the size of whatever Paizo was in 2007-2009. Now that Pathfinder is a lot more popular, the moderation policies / philosophies aren't scaling as well as was hoped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were given the power to permanently suspend ten people from the boardsI almost sent a private message asking for a list, so that I could pre-load it in the ignore script.
Why must Ethics be such a cruel master? :-(
I do know of a few people that a lot of people download your script for.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the problem is that the moderation policies /philosophies are that of a company that's the size of whatever Paizo was in 2007-2009. Now that Pathfinder is a lot more popular, the moderation policies / philosophies aren't scaling as well as was hoped.
Doesn't everything come down to scaling in the end? ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
119 posts before the first oblique mention of martials vs casters. Maybe the forums *are* getting a bit better ;)
As a former member of the community management team for one of the other major game companies...
I agree with Sean.
Specifically, there are bad eggs out there and sometimes only permanently removing them will work.
These are what we call negative-value customers. People who don't spend enough money on a company's products or services to compensate for the amount of company resources it takes to deal with them. They consume time and energy that could be better utilized elsewhere.
Some people just need to be fired as customers.
Obviously, creating a civil and respectful community takes a few more steps than that, but its often a necessary first step.
(Important side note - there is a difference between a negative-value customer and a passionate customer who often resorts to negative language in their forum posts. The former is generally incorrigible, the latter can sometimes be gently persuaded to change their ways.)
My advice to Paizo is simply to hire a community manager.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similar to Ebay, you could have forum users with enough posts (say 100 post minimum) to hit a feedback button of some sort on an alias if they think they are being a jerk.
Now, when a forum moderator comes along and see a jerky post by someone, they can look up the alias and see how many people (and different posts) have been marked as a "jerk" post. If the moderator sees enough people and in multiple posts marked as "jerk" posts, then the moderator can send a message to that person and give them an official warning.
If a moderator finds a post they feel is over the line, but that person has rarely made other "jerk" rated posts, then perhaps the moderator cuts them some slack.
It's a self-policing mechanism, whereby the forum users can signal a jerk post, and if enough of them pile up and a moderator finds a post clearly crosses the line, they can step in. It would make it easier on moderators who might hesitate on a borderline post.
Now, as a reminder, the forum users have no power to enforce anything, they can just rate a post as a jerk post. The moderator can use that information in the future should something catch their attention as to how common those kind of forum posts are occurring.
Blah, that's probably a long-winded suggestion, but I think you get what I'm trying to say.
As a former member of the community management team for one of the other major game companies...
I agree with Sean.
Specifically, there are bad eggs out there and sometimes only permanently removing them will work.
These are what we call negative-value customers. People who don't spend enough money on a company's products or services to compensate for the amount of company resources it takes to deal with them. They consume time and energy that could be better utilized elsewhere.
Some people just need to be fired as customers.
Obviously, creating a civil and respectful community takes a few more steps than that, but its often a necessary first step.
(Important side note - there is a difference between a negative-value customer and a passionate customer who often resorts to negative language in their forum posts. The former is generally incorrigible, the latter can sometimes be gently persuaded to change their ways.)
My advice to Paizo is simply to hire a community manager.
So how much money does someone have to spend to go from negative-value to good customer who acts negatively? How do your track this metric?
As someone who spends quite a bit of my disposable income on Paizo products and had spent more than a decade in customer service the idea of a "negative-value" customer is greatly disturbing. Particularly that someone may upgrade their status with purchases. This would lead to a very confrontational atmosphere between CSR's and customers. Particularly new customers. Heaven help folks who have detailed product questions pre-purchase. "Hmmmm... Has this person spent any money yet? No? They are annoying, temp ban."
I'm not suggesting that CSR's here would behave that way, but that is the result you ultimately encourage with that view.
Let me clarify...
The "negative value customer" idea is mainly attached to folks who knowingly and willingly "troll" the forums and are not shy about stating that they do not purchase products.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the problem of knowing who buys Paizo products and who doesn't. Just because they haven't ordered from Paizo.com doesn't mean they might not be buying books from Amazon or their FLGS.
If they knew it would let them get away with more on the forums, I can certainly see problem posters claiming to buy locally and no way to check up on it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
119 posts before the first oblique mention of martials vs casters. Maybe the forums *are* getting a bit better ;)
If you're referring to my comment about scaling, I wasn't thinking martial/caster at all, actually. I was thinking of things like "Power Attack versus any other method of trying to keep up with monster HP".
Let me clarify...
The "negative value customer" idea is mainly attached to folks who knowingly and willingly "troll" the forums and are not shy about stating that they do not purchase products.
I understand the distinction in theory. By including money in the equation you create a situation that will devolve very quickly from your theoretical starting place. "Trolls" are easier to dismiss if they haven't reached your purchase threshold. Even if they are not trolls but are justifiably upset customers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blah, that's probably a long-winded suggestion, but I think you get what I'm trying to say.
I'm not sure this is substantially different than the current flagging system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for starters, community managers aren't the same as customer service reps.
They're related, in that they're both public-facing roles (and since the Paizo boards are managed by employees who aren't full-time moderators or community managers, they overlap here), but they're not the same, any more than a PR/marketing person is the same as a CSR. A CSR generally navigates between the company's interests and the customer's. A CM primarily navigates between the company's interests and the community's, with individual customers coming after that. A PR person navigates between the company's business interests and their relationship with an even larger community -- the general public -- and may never deal with individual customers. Generally, those priorities align (making sure forums remain organized and welcoming serves the company, the community as a whole, and the individuals using the forums), but in the case of people who are repeatedly disruptive to the community, they can start to diverge.
I have been on community management teams where a disruptive-enough individual drove the team to start to work out the cost of the staff time spent cleaning up after the person, and realized that the actual dollar cost of keeping them around (not to mention the cost in employee morale and community goodwill) was just too high.
I agree that using it as a regular metric for deciding how to deal with individuals would be a terrible idea, but in exceptional cases, it can be a reality check for how much it's worth putting up with before showing someone the door.
As Kiraya notes, though, generally the "negative value" term is applied to trolls who aren't actually buying anything (and aren't shy about letting that be known). They don't contribute positively to the community (and in fact may drive away other customers and/or community members, or make it difficult for people to do things like get answers and support via the community platforms), they don't buy the company's products, and they suck up a lot of company resources. So at some point, CMs start asking themselves what, if anything, is gained by allowing them to continue using the company's community platforms.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the best solution is to actually permanently suspending people who've
* had 20 or more posts removed because of their original content (i.e., not counting posts that were removed because they quoted a problem post),
I like all your ideas but this. The problem is a lot of posters Flag posts that they simply disagree with. Heck one poster here even advocated Flagging all of my posts in a discussion, just for that reason. And of course that's often in a discussion where tempers are getting heated, so the Mods simply remove all the flagged posts sometimes.
You are a controversial poster, as am I to a lesser extent. The Paizo haters, the one who come here to constantly knock Paizo, who complain constantly, post personal insults, most of whom don't even play Pathfinder, etc, would love a system where if they reported enuf of a poster's post that poster would get get banned. That would leave the trolls in charge. Sean- you'd be banned if you weren't Sean. ;-)
Not that your posts are ban-worthy, but every troll would Flag each and every of your posts.
We have posters that when a debate isn't running the way they like they just start making posts they KNOW will be flagged and thus the thread heads toward lock-down.
Right here in this thread is a poster who has stalked me even unto other message boards, where he was suspended for stalking. Here, all the mods did was remove his post. And yes, I sent a email. And a PM.
The trolls are smart, they have learned what works here on this MB, and they actually work the Flag system to their benefit.
Unfortunate, the Mods here are just too busy .
Let me clarify...
The "negative value customer" idea is mainly attached to folks who knowingly and willingly "troll" the forums and are not shy about stating that they do not purchase products.
Yep. They constantly complain, offer no constructive advice, and openly admit in many cases they don't play PF. Even if they don;t openly admit it, after they post times about "The rouge is the suxxor" but never mention what they do play or any mention of their games in any other thread, you have to assume they are just here to troll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right here in this thread is a poster who has stalked me even unto other message boards, where he was suspended for stalking. Here, all the mods did was remove his post. And yes, I sent a email. And a PM.
Heya, just a quick note that we did receive this email, and will be responding. I apologize for the lag there. The messageboards aren't the best venue for this kind of thing.
Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do not base moderation decisions on having an order history with paizo.com or on how much a person may or may not purchase Pathfinder products through other avenues.
I feel very strongly that community members (and/or customers) should not be penalized for a lack of funds or no record of purchases.
Banning someone from posting is something that we don't do lightly. There have been several people that have started out as problems who are now excellent members of the forums and who make positive contributions. Its far better to work with people on improving messageboard behavior than to just ban them.
We do not base moderation decisions on having an order history with paizo.com or on how much a person may or may not purchase Pathfinder products through other avenues.
I feel very strongly that community members (and/or customers) should not be penalized for a lack of funds or no record of purchases.
Banning someone from posting is something that we don't do lightly. There have been several people that have started out as problems who are now excellent members of the forums and who make positive contributions. Its far better to work with people on improving messageboard behavior than to just ban them.
I agree. But I do think we should look for those "positive contributions" and expect some reasonable % of them. Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, or course in fact it's often a Good Thing. The important word there being "constructive". Coming into a thread where the Op asks for advice on how to build a Rogue and saying "Don't- it's a cruddy class" isn't helping anyone. Coming in and saying "Hmm, have you looked at Archeologist Bard and this ranger and inquisitor?" can be helpful. Constructive.
And I think that the people who obviously do not even play Pathfinder also need to be considered as "negative value".
Other than the fact I think you guys are overworked, you do an excellent job. Thank you, Sara and Chris. My sincere thanks for all your hard work and dedication.
I understand the distinction in theory. By including money in the equation you create a situation that will devolve very quickly from your theoretical starting place. "Trolls" are easier to dismiss if they haven't reached your purchase threshold. Even if they are not trolls but are justifiably upset customers.Let me clarify...
The "negative value customer" idea is mainly attached to folks who knowingly and willingly "troll" the forums and are not shy about stating that they do not purchase products.
I'd have to agree with this. Buying your way out of trouble should never be an option. Far better to simply say there are some people who, no matter how much they're spending, just shouldn't be welcome on the boards.
As Kiraya notes, though, generally the "negative value" term is applied to trolls who aren't actually buying anything (and aren't shy about letting that be known). They don't contribute positively to the community (and in fact may drive away other customers and/or community members, or make it difficult for people to do things like get answers and support via the community platforms), they don't buy the company's products, and they suck up a lot of...
Are there any heuristics to use to analyze posts to see if people said things like that they don't buy PF, or they take many issues with it? The latter shouldn't necessarily be reason for banning (Umbral Reaver has issues with the Pathfinder system, but many people find her to be an amazing contributor to the forums with lots of great ideas), but maybe as a flagging? The above criteria matched with poor behavior seems like it would denote a "negative value" person.
Are there any heuristics to use to analyze posts to see if people said things like that they don't buy PF, or they take many issues with it? The latter shouldn't necessarily be reason for banning (Umbral Reaver has issues with the Pathfinder system, but many people find her to be an amazing contributor to the forums with lots of great ideas), but maybe as a flagging? The above criteria matched with poor behavior seems like it would denote a "negative value" person.
As Kiraya notes, though, generally the "negative value" term is applied to trolls who aren't actually buying anything (and aren't shy about letting that be known). They don't contribute positively to the community (and in fact may drive away other customers and/or community members, or make it difficult for people to do things like get answers and support via the community platforms), they don't buy the company's products, and they suck up a lot of...
To be clear, it's not a term I've ever heard used here, nor have I ever heard anyone doing that sort of analysis in deciding how to proceed with problem posters here. My experience with it is from doing community management/working with CMs at larger companies.
Like I said, it's not terribly common even there. But every so often you get someone who adamantly and explicitly refuses to abide by the community's terms of service, and upon investigation, they're usually people who haven't actually bought anything. Which actually makes intuitive sense to me -- if I'm monetarily invested in a game, and I regularly make use of features of its online community, I'm probably invested in ensuring the community features remain usable.
I'd have to agree with this. Buying your way out of trouble should never be an option. Far better to simply say there are some people who, no matter how much they're spending, just shouldn't be welcome on the boards.I understand the distinction in theory. By including money in the equation you create a situation that will devolve very quickly from your theoretical starting place. "Trolls" are easier to dismiss if they haven't reached your purchase threshold. Even if they are not trolls but are justifiably upset customers.Let me clarify...
The "negative value customer" idea is mainly attached to folks who knowingly and willingly "troll" the forums and are not shy about stating that they do not purchase products.
Precisely my point. Money doesn't belong in the equation. And in my experience and the experience of those whom I have mentored and/or worked with, by removing money from this particular equation you put yourself in a position to make more of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any heuristics to use to analyze posts to see if people said things like that they don't buy PF, or they take many issues with it? The latter shouldn't necessarily be reason for banning (Umbral Reaver has issues with the Pathfinder system, but many people find her to be an amazing contributor to the forums with lots of great ideas), but maybe as a flagging? The above criteria matched with poor behavior seems like it would denote a "negative value" person.
I really don't feel there's a need to track the bolded idea there. Not everyone who takes issue with PF or aspects of PF is a troll or hater here to tell you you're having fun wrong. Many are passionate people who love the game enough to want to see it changed for the better. Disagreeing is not sufficient reason to treat them like criminals.
Are there any heuristics to use to analyze posts to see if people said things like that they don't buy PF, or they take many issues with it? The latter shouldn't necessarily be reason for banning (Umbral Reaver has issues with the Pathfinder system, but many people find her to be an amazing contributor to the forums with lots of great ideas), but maybe as a flagging? The above criteria matched with poor behavior seems like it would denote a "negative value" person.I really don't feel there's a need to track the bolded idea there. Not everyone who takes issue with PF or aspects of PF is a troll or hater here to tell you you're having fun wrong. Many are passionate people who love the game enough to want to see it changed for the better. Disagreeing is not sufficient reason to treat them like criminals.
Absolutely. And disagreement by itself isn't a problem -- a lot of times, the people who passionately disagree with you are the ones who help you make your product(s) better.
I'm talking about trolls -- people who predominantly post things designed to start flamewars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any heuristics to use to analyze posts to see if people said things like that they don't buy PF, or they take many issues with it? The latter shouldn't necessarily be reason for banning (Umbral Reaver has issues with the Pathfinder system, but many people find her to be an amazing contributor to the forums with lots of great ideas), but maybe as a flagging? The above criteria matched with poor behavior seems like it would denote a "negative value" person.I really don't feel there's a need to track the bolded idea there. Not everyone who takes issue with PF or aspects of PF is a troll or hater here to tell you you're having fun wrong. Many are passionate people who love the game enough to want to see it changed for the better. Disagreeing is not sufficient reason to treat them like criminals.Absolutely. And disagreement by itself isn't a problem -- a lot of times, the people who passionately disagree with you are the ones who help you make your product(s) better.
I'm talking about trolls -- people who predominantly post things designed to start flamewars.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, ma'am ^_^ (Actually, as a personal aside you became one of my heroes in the industry when the whole 'gender equality in Golarion' thread happened). Just making a point out loud so it's been said clearly.
Are there any heuristics to use to analyze posts to see if people said things like that they don't buy PF, or they take many issues with it? The latter shouldn't necessarily be reason for banning (Umbral Reaver has issues with the Pathfinder system, but many people find her to be an amazing contributor to the forums with lots of great ideas), but maybe as a flagging? The above criteria matched with poor behavior seems like it would denote a "negative value" person.I really don't feel there's a need to track the bolded idea there. Not everyone who takes issue with PF or aspects of PF is a troll or hater here to tell you you're having fun wrong. Many are passionate people who love the game enough to want to see it changed for the better. Disagreeing is not sufficient reason to treat them like criminals.
Absolutely! That's why I think it'd be a good idea to use it as only part of the heuristic. Something like "Hey, might be worthy of looking closer." As my example showed, I know for a fact that people who don't agree with the rules can be very helpful and over-all-positive for the community. They also can provide some unique and very useful feedback, at times and when constructive, since they're the type who won't be blinded by brand loyalty. A useful type, that. I've always said that praise is nice, but criticism is useful. :)
It's been 5 months since the person I had in mind when writing this posted, so maybe Paizo did get rid of them. (And I'm fairly certain they were one of the 5 that Sean mentioned, given their last post.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, well, now I'm blushing.
And cool, just wanted to make clear that I don't think any good CM or person in a community management role sees simple disagreement as an issue.
Of course, people's ability to express disagreement without breaking community guidelines about obscene language, insulting or threatening staff or other posters, etc. can be an issue. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, people's ability to express disagreement without breaking community guidelines about obscene language, insulting or threatening staff or other posters, etc. can be an issue. :-)
Mmm...this might be a separate-thread thing, but I've noticed what is taken as 'insulting the staff' here would be classified as constructive criticism elsewhere. I know that on some occasions when offering design feedback I've been seen as hyperbolic or insulting when really it's just the paradigm I'm used to and/or I wasn't exaggerating, those were the results I got.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's generally a good idea to assume that insulting someone is not constructive criticism.
That's just criticism.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one thing to say, "I really dislike how this class ability plays out in game, the math seems off and doesn't bear up during actual play" and another thing entirely to say, "Whoever wrote this is an awful person who should go kill themselves because clearly they don't know what they're doing."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one thing to say, "I really dislike how this class ability plays out in game, the math seems off and doesn't bear up during actual play" and another thing entirely to say, "Whoever wrote this is an awful person who should go kill themselves because clearly they don't know what they're doing."
Indeed. What I was attempting to say/convey (and possibly failing) is that I've felt that myself and others have offered the former, but what others heard/treated it as was the latter.