Building a Community

[Nihimon]

Hobs the Short wrote:

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.

I hope it's obvious that I also hope that the mods/devs/owners set good examples for us.

I think the key difference is that I don't think it's appropriate to call them out for what they do, and become argumentative with them.

In all seriousness, if you counted all the times that forum posters called out moderators and became argumentative with them, what percentage of those would you expect the moderators were actually the ones in the wrong?

For the record, if Ryan came on went on a drunken rampage and started calling everyone names, I'd think it was appropriate to call him on it. But that's not going to happen, and I think giving posters sanction to hold mods/devs/owners to any standards is just asking for trouble.

[Urman]

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

I don't think policing TEO / TSV / Pax teamspeak is up to the game community, but the individual organizations involved. Same with individual forums.

Agreed - voice chats and guild forums are subject to those groups policing. Any comms method provided by PFO should generally be subject to PFO rules, including local and guild chats. By 'generally' I mean that PFO might decide to have mods that check the local chats in start towns, but they usually will ignore guild channels unless complaints arise.

Anything off PFO's sites is probably outside of their domain/responsibility, except where they need to enforce trademarks, etc.

[Gedichtewicht]

Maybe we should tackle this the other way around.
while studying to be a nurse i had a teacher in process planing who always said the following:
To plan a process you nedd to set a goal.
a goal has to be smething positiv.
Why, because when you want to get somewhere you not to know whare aomewhere is not where it isn´t.

when you buy a trainticket you have to say where you want to go, not where you don´t want to go.

so, maybe we can more easily define how we want this comunity to treat us?
and i think the pat of bludd´s post i asid was a code of conduct would be a good start.

it was:
Quote:

Be Welcoming
Be A Good Visitor
Be Helpful
Be Instructive
Be Firm
Be Open
Be Honest
Be Brave

and if i may add my addition again
be respectful

final note.
i think it would help this topic to first focus on the common ground we have to define baselines.
the arguments about fineries can come later.

additional final note:
this is a community effort.
noone is excludet.
everybody may raise it´s voice.
i don´t know where the "rules by a minority" argument comes from.

[Bluddwolf]

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

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.

That is not what I have read in Ryan Dancey's post to you.

Ryan Dancey's Advice

Nowhere in this extensive response does he say anything remotely related to "Unsportsmanship" like conduct or "The Soul of the Community".

As a matter of fact, you took just one line, applied your interpretation to it and ignored every other bit of advice that does not fit your narrative.

If I am using the wrong post, then please point it out. But even if I have used the wrong post, how is it that you have not so vigorously championed what Ryan has written in the post I have directed our attention to?

I will give examples: Below are Ryan Dancey Comments (bold)

I think that that the first thing you should do is stop making assumptions. If I were you, my whole approach now would be to create a community not to set policies. Gather together a large number of people who share common objectives and create a shared sense of purpose.

This is where you came up with the idea that the Shared Sense of Purpose was to create the Soul of the Community, and that soul is embodied in "Forum Civility."

The Problem is that it has nothing to do what with he said later, the other 90% of the post.

"Worrying about alignments, reputation, and security policies is not going to have much effect on your long term success at this juncture. Those are things that are still going to undergo a tremendous amount of crowdforging and will almost certainly change many times in Early Enrollment as we all seek good compromises."

This paragraph you completely ignore, at all costs! In all of your snipping you NEVER include this paragraph. It does not support your narrative. It is actually the exact opposite of everything you say about alignment / reputation being a meaningful system to control player interaction.

The rest of the Dancey Post goes on to lay out all of the steps a settlement should take in order to prepare for an invasion of an outside entity coming to PFO with the intent of conquest.

________________________________________________________________________

None of this thread or the other addresses these points. I'm not saying that Forum Civility is not a good thing to develop and follow.

But, that civility should be expected from all, including the devs, should they comment here. I also would like to point out that I never said that they should be indicted or that you should be combative. Again, that is Nihimon's narrative.... I wrote (paraphrased), if a dev posts something that seems to violate the tenure of the conversation that we would like to have here, gently remind them that their post is not constructive towards that goal.

Finally, and not to put too fine a point on this..

Nihimon wrote:

I have expressed my opinion that certain very specific acts were not acceptable, and asked the community to back me up on that.

Your opinion would either have acceptance or not. Your goal is to make your opinion known. To then ask acceptance of it is just not how this interaction works. There is no "I win" in a discussion. If we are having a debate, then that is a different story. But you still don't ask for support, you earn support through the strength of your argument.

We are not fighting for the Soul of this Community. That is a very pretentious thing to claim. We are perhaps trying to come up with a few uniform codes to follow to be more respectful.

[Bluddwolf]

Gedichtewicht wrote:

so, maybe we can more easily define how we want this community to treat us?

I think the pat of bludd´s post I said was a code of conduct would be a good start.

it was:
Quote:

Be Welcoming
Be A Good Visitor
Be Helpful
Be Instructive
Be Firm
Be Open
Be Honest
Be Brave
Be Respectful

final note.
i think it would help this topic to first focus on the common ground we have to define baselines. The arguments about fineries can come later.

additional final note:

This is a community effort. None are excluded. Everybody may raise its voice. I don´t know where the "rules by a minority" argument comes from.

Thank you for bringing us back to this objective. In finding a very simple code we can follow.

I can not see why anyone could object to that list, nor why any should be exempt from it based on title. But I'm open to read additions, take-aways (reason why).

[Hobs the Short]

Nihimon wrote:

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

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.

What is it then that you hope to gain by having the community back you (i.e. agreeing that very specific behaviors are unacceptable)? I assume that you hope that your collective disapproval stops the poster from performing those very specific acts.

My question is this. What number of community members would constitute an amount sufficient to validate the silencing of another poster's opinion because you (and your backers) deem it unacceptable?

[Alexander_Damocles]

Hobs the Short wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

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.

What is it then that you hope to gain by having the community back you (i.e. agreeing that very specific behaviors are unacceptable)? I assume that you hope that your collective disapproval stops the poster from performing those very specific acts.

My question is this. What number of community members would constitute an amount sufficient to validate the silencing of another poster's opinion because you (and your backers) deem it unacceptable?

I don't think anyone is seeking to silence an opinion, merely redirect that opinion in a more positive manner. For example, if a poster comes along and says "I want to play as an orc. I've only played orcs, and I won't play if I can't play as one." If the community responded in a manner directing them towards playing a half-orc, instead of saying "LOL no orcs, not the game for you, gtfo", then I think we have arrived at what we want.

[Dak Thunderkeg]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Gedichtewicht wrote:

so, maybe we can more easily define how we want this community to treat us?

I think the pat of bludd´s post I said was a code of conduct would be a good start.

it was:
Quote:

Be Welcoming
Be A Good Visitor
Be Helpful
Be Instructive
Be Firm
Be Open
Be Honest
Be Brave
Be Respectful

final note.
i think it would help this topic to first focus on the common ground we have to define baselines. The arguments about fineries can come later.

additional final note:

This is a community effort. None are excluded. Everybody may raise its voice. I don´t know where the "rules by a minority" argument comes from.

Thank you for bringing us back to this objective. In finding a very simple code we can follow.

I can not see why anyone could object to that list, nor why any should be exempt from it based on title. But I'm open to read additions, take-aways (reason why).

This is a perfect example of a generalized list I would adhere to and uphold on these forums, if they are applied judiciously.

I love this, and thank you both for presenting it.

[Urman]

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

Be Welcoming
Be A Good Visitor
Be Helpful
Be Instructive
Be Firm
Be Open
Be Honest
Be Brave
Be Respectful

I can not see why anyone could object to that list, nor why any should be exempt from it based on title. But I'm open to read additions, take-aways (reason why).

This is a perfect example of a generalized list I would adhere to and uphold on these forums, if they are applied judiciously.

Seeking clarification - What do the two that I've bolded mean?

[Dak Thunderkeg]

Bludd I believe came up with the majority of the list. I don't want to put words in his mouth so I will offer what I took from those two.

Be Firm - Decisiveness in correcting points or identifying behaviors than run in contradiction to the code.

Be Brave - A willingness to apply the code even when it is breached by your organizational leaders, or a developer.

I am less attached to Be Brave, and can see both points.

[Bluddwolf]

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

Bludd I believe came up with the majority of the list. I don't want to put words in his mouth so I will offer what I took from those two.

Be Firm - Decisiveness in correcting points or identifying behaviors than run in contradiction to the code.

Be Brave - A willingness to apply the code even when it is breached by your organizational leaders, or a developer.

I am less attached to Be Brave, and can see both points.

Yes..... Firm and Brave can also mean, "Say what you mean, and own what you say."

[Hobs the Short]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I don't think anyone is seeking to silence an opinion, merely redirect that opinion in a more positive manner. For example, if a poster comes along and says "I want to play as an orc. I've only played orcs, and I won't play if I can't play as one." If the community responded in a manner directing them towards playing a half-orc, instead of saying "LOL no orcs, not the game for you, gtfo", then I think we have arrived at what we want.

Alexander,

I have no problem whatsoever with what you suggest - providing facts about what the game will contain and your opinion of how they might still find enjoyment in the game. I have posted as much earlier:

Hobs the Short wrote:

Second, I believe any new poster should be provided a warm welcome (Ixiolander of TEO is superb at this), treated civilly, and directed to all the available official blogs and posts to gain the most educated view of the game. If they have questions, we should endeavor to provide answers (based on those same blogs and posts) as free of bias as possible. At that point, the choice is theirs. Certainly, we would like to grow the community, but to do so by presenting what the game will be based on our personal bias may lead to misrepresentation of the game. There is nothing wrong with stating, "I believe the game will be ______ based on _______" as long as you make it clear that this is only your opinion, or again, you can point the new poster to an official blog or post to back up that description.

My concern is that at some point, the desire of some to purge the forums of "unacceptable actions" will mean that if your actions are judged unacceptable that you must either change your mind or they will "remove you from the community" (as worded in the post I'm referencing). I'm not certain how any poster has the power to remove a fellow poster from this forum, but at least one poster in this thread has already aimed this type of statement at a fellow poster.

[Papaver]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I don't think anyone is seeking to silence an opinion

Yes someone is

Nihimon wrote:

One of the many reasons it's so critically important for the community itself to censure certain behaviors, and even certain viewpoints (such as arguing that griefing is actually good for the game).

Edit: never mind! Confused a u with a o :)

[AvenaOats]

@Pap: Nihimon has written a lot words, it appears to be he is some sort of censorial obsessive when you highlight the few words like that. I don't think that is his intention. I'll back that view up with another post, later. Trust me.

[Bluddwolf]

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

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.

Oh I see..... So if we point out that someone's comment is an example of "toxic" to the community, that pointing it out is combative and therefore also toxic.....

I guess we are done here then. Nothing can be said about anything, without being combative and toxic.

[Papaver]

I didn't highlight anything. That was the entirety of that one post.

[Bluddwolf]

Gedichtewicht wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

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.

It is a no solution argument to get into what is Fundamental to the game design and what us not. There will be argument without any chance to reach agreement.

I could say that PFO does not need an alignment system in order to be a good game. Others would certainly disagree, and neither would convince the other.

[Gedichtewicht]

Maybe it is time to take a step back from this topic, do something else/have a good nights sleep/breath deeply, whatever takes the mind of this and calms down.

For the record, i don´t think nihimon is trying to censor the forum,
nor do i believe that he wants to silence certain opinions.
i just believe that he, as others too, is passionate about this game/this community.
Which is the same i said about bludd earlier;)
please don´t be offended by this you two.

when passions are running high people tend to react instantly and think less about there reaction.
so, coming back to my first paragraph, maybe it is time for a pause.
lets continue in a day or two with a fresh view and a calm mind?

[Hobs the Short]

Gedichtewicht,

Given how long it usually takes me to bang out a reply, edit, reread it, etc., I can assure you, I don't react instantly on these forums. :)

However, out of respect for you, I can wait until tomorrow to post anything else in this thread unless I read something that demands a response. After all, we do still have nearly a year to discuss things here before the actual game provides us another venue for interaction.

[Lifedragn]

Just trying to catch up on this after 24 hours is tiring with all of the back and forth.

The very notions of civility differ from person to person. Some feel that authority should be respected and other feel that feet should be put to the fire. And some on the extreme fringes in favor of or against certain elements are viewing ideological moderates as dangerous fundamentalists. I would hope that being respectful to those with opinions counter to your own would be the desire of the majority, but I am not sure that it is at this point. When trying to counter someone, try to read your message and ask how you would feel if it were targeted AT YOURSELF. And then try to imagine (or mentally roleplay to yourself) having thinner skin than you do. If you have a 'thick skin' approach, then you are not going to be very successful at getting messages across.

The very expectations of the game differ from person to person. A minority want PvE playgrounds and another minority want the most important regions of the game to be identical to EVE Null Sec. I believe, and hope, that the majority favors the PvP can happen anywhere, but there will be extra consequences if you go picking on those who do not want it (upping the risk to target them but not enough to make them immune to danger if they are foolish enough to try moving a small fortune through the wilderness without bringing friends).

At this point, we are trying to herd cats. We are covering too broad of a topic under the umbrella of 'Community'. There are a number of solid sub-topics to begin discussing throughout this thread so far. However, that number of topics is also degrading to the discussion as a whole because whenever someone feels their position is weakened they start falling back to the other sub-topics and then begin bringing up old points again when things come full circle.

My Proposal:

1) Break some of these specific ideas out in individual threads.
2) We need to agree to stay ON TOPIC as well as possible within said thread.
3) If one of those ideas branches out into a dozen sub-topics as they have in here, we will need to agree to create new threads as needed.
4) If/When resolutions are reached, we can document them in a Community thread.
5) We will need to understand that resolutions made in the coming days/weeks/months may be subject to change over time. If a challenge arises, we should begin discussion in a new thread in order to keep the Community thread clean.

Not sure how many will agree to this being a proper angle. But it is what I have to offer.

[Urman]

Lifedragn wrote:

2) We need to agree to stay ON TOPIC as well as possible within said thread.

Agreed. Not just with respect to community building, but all threads. Jumping topics makes threads less easily searched and less useful.

[Nihimon]

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

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.

My apologies for not getting to these yesterday. I had a few moments to reply, so my replies are after these posts, but I didn't have enough time to properly engage them.

I would ask you all, again, what will it look like to have a community that is intolerant of unacceptable behavior?

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people who would very much like a community that didn't call out unacceptable or abusive behavior. I'm sure some of them would argue that if the mods don't delete a certain post, then that is objective proof that it wasn't abusive or unacceptable.

In my original post, I tried to make clear that my purpose was to rally the community in support of the principle's Ryan has laid out with respect to how PvP in PFO will be different (less Grief-y) than in other Open PvP MMOs. I tried to make clear that Ryan's plan involves an active role for the community in engaging both extremes - those who have had horrible experiences with unregulated Open PvP in other games, and those who think that unregulated Open PvP is just fine - and explaining to them how PFO is going to be different.

In my original post, I also quoted something from Ryan that I said was important - that our approach to the people who think it's okay to cause others pain should be fundamentally the same as our approach to the people who are worried they'll get hurt for no reason. We should engage them honestly, without telling them to leave, but we should make clear to them that PFO will not be like that.

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

How would you respond to a person who came here and said, " I'm here to be a noob killing griefer because I can. If I get booted, I'll just roll on another account. I don't care what your community norms are, I'm a griefer"?

I would tell them this is not the game for them.

I was wrong. I shouldn't tell them this isn't the game for them. I should work to explain how this game will not support that particular play style, and encourage them to adopt a play style that will be supported.

[Nihimon]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

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.

That is not what I have read in Ryan Dancey's post to you.

Ryan Dancey's Advice

I have repeatedly linked and quoted the posts from Ryan that support my position that we must call out unacceptable behavior, and try to rally the community to that position.

"[url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q0mf?Compilation-of-Ryans-answers-in-the-MMORPGCOM-QA#1 wrote:

Ryan Dancey[/url]]The community is the key to the whole venture. If it is allowed to become toxic, we'll be sunk. So protecting the integrity of the community is key to our long term plans.

Against that objective comes the anonymous a#@@&*%s of teh interwebz. Can we successfully ward our community from their misbehavior? I think we can. Our approach is multi-layered: game mechanics, game masters, community managers, and of course, our selective enforcement power to separate individuals from the game and the community if they prove to be unwilling or unable to be good citizens. There is no single magic bullet. All of these things must be deployed in parallel and in a mixture and matrix to fight the barbarians at our gates.

The Community will be its own best defense. If we develop standards of behavior generally intolerant of a+@#%&!rly, the number of such will be constrained.

1. I believe it is unacceptable to treat new posters like crap because they are afraid that PvP in PFO will be the same kind of grief-fest they've experienced in other games. Ryan has effectively bet his company that he'll be able to produce a game that solves those problems, and produce a game that's full of meaningful PvP while being as free as possible of meaningless PvP.

2. I believe it is unacceptable to attack posters for spreading the message in #1.

3. I believe it is utterly necessary to call out that behavior and state that it is unacceptable. If it is not called out, then it is de facto "accepted". As Ryan said, "f it is allowed to become toxic, we'll be sunk."

4. I believe we [i]must not allow a majority to silence the voices who call out this behavior as being unacceptable. If goons came here in force, should their sheer numbers be permitted to change the tenor of the community?

Bravura Khan wrote:

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.

I am not asking for any special powers. I am not asking anyone to pre-commit to supporting my definitions of acceptable behavior. I am not asking anyone to engage in any behavior other than civilly, respectfully calling out unacceptable behavior.

I am calling out these particular examples of unacceptable behavior because these are the ones that I believe are a threat to the tenor of the community. If anyone else wants to call out other particular examples, they're free to do so. If those examples involve me - which I acknowledge they might - I will be honest and open-minded and quick to admit it if I was wrong.

The idea that we shouldn't call out unacceptable behavior is suicidal. It will result in goons taking over the boards and turning them into the very thing that Ryan has said will sink the game and his company.

[Jazzlvraz]

Nihimon wrote:

I would ask you all, again, what will it look like to have a community that is intolerant of unacceptable behavior?

Unfortunately, I think we've moved further from it by trying so hard to codify and regularise it. This was one of the most-pleasant game-board communities I'd ever met, until Ryan exhorted us to create a community.

Apres lui, le deluge.

Sniping, backbiting, taking offence at minor comments, reading emotional content into written words that can't adequately carry emotion, thinking the worst of each other...all have escalated since then. I hope these paroxysms will die down once we've gotten them out of our systems; I want the friendly back.

To steal liberally from a great communicator:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

[Nihimon]

Hobs the Short wrote:

What is it then that you hope to gain by having the community back you (i.e. agreeing that very specific behaviors are unacceptable)? I assume that you hope that your collective disapproval stops the poster from performing those very specific acts.

Yes, this is exactly what I hope to accomplish.

Hobs the Short wrote:

My question is this. What number of community members would constitute an amount sufficient to validate the silencing of another poster's opinion because you (and your backers) deem it unacceptable?

It's not a question of numbers. As I said, there are probably more goons than there are of us, and they're more organized. If it was to their advantage, I have no doubt they could call in reinforcements to overwhelm and shout down any other viewpoint on these boards.

Also, I am no more trying to "silence" Bluddwolf's viewpoint than I was trying to "silence" Realmwalker's viewpoint when I explained to him that there would be non-consensual PvP in PFO. I understand it's a lot easier to oppose my position if it can be painted that way, but that's not an accurate portrayal of what I'm doing.

I am trying to get the community to tell Bluddwolf two things: 1) it is not acceptable to attack other posters because they're afraid PvP in PFO will be the same kind of grief-fest they've experienced in other games; and 2) it is unacceptable to attack other posters who attempt to explain that PvP in PFO will not be the same kind of grief-fest that so many other games have devoved into.

Even if I were the only voice saying those things were unacceptable, I would still be saying it.

Or do you think there's a particular number of posters who should be able to silence my opinion? Remember, there are lots of goons and they could easily show up in force and exceed that number...

[Nihimon]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I don't think anyone is seeking to silence an opinion, merely redirect that opinion in a more positive manner. For example, if a poster comes along and says "I want to play as an orc. I've only played orcs, and I won't play if I can't play as one." If the community responded in a manner directing them towards playing a half-orc, instead of saying "LOL no orcs, not the game for you, gtfo", then I think we have arrived at what we want.

A nail! Struck squarely on the head!

[Mbando]

You guys are arguing about low order concerns like whether the game is "about" PvP, what constitutes griefing and incivility, etc.

I think you're ignoring the highest order concern that Ryan laid out: existing digital communities of practice that have a radically different kind of investment and play-style than the people who are posting here. Most of us want to RP, explore, play with friends, craft, etc. and have some kind of investment in PF/D&D.

Groups like the goons want something very different. Their goal is to holistically win the game through total war: no in/meta-game strategy or tactics is off limits. I don't know that this is "ruining," although it might feel that way to a lot of us.

That's the high order concern, and Ryan laid out a lot of clear guidance on how to create our own digital community of practice to counter this. Basically energy spent right now squabbling about alignment, whether their should be open world PvP or not, who's a carebear, etc. is absolutely wasted. Its like democrats and republicans furiously arguing about whether the highest tax rate should be X or .95X, while there's an alien invasion force about burn every square inch the country to the ground.

We should find some game to play in now, regardless of potential in game role or chartered company--some sort of "PFO Community" guild, and get to know each other in cooperative ways.

[Nihimon]

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

... a generalized list I would adhere to and uphold on these forums, if they are applied judiciously.

It is not my personal goal to create a Code of Conduct. I think that's a fine endeavor for the community, but I just want it to be clear that this is not the desired end-state for me.

My personal goal is to create an example of the community "being its own best defense" and calling out unacceptable behavior before it is allowed to perpetuate and devolve into greater and greater toxicity. This is why I keep asking the question: "what will it look like to be intolerant of unacceptable behavior?" I believe it will look a lot like one poster - civilly and respectfully - pointing out very specific acts, stating they are unacceptable, and asking the community to support that position.

If anyone has a better model for how to go about being intolerant of unacceptable behavior, I would be very interested in seeing it. I did not ask the question rhetorically.

[Rafkin]

This thread needs to die. Go play something.

Don't be a jerk. That's the only rule we need.

[Nihimon]

Hobs the Short wrote:

My concern is that at some point, the desire of some to purge the forums of "unacceptable actions" will mean that if your actions are judged unacceptable that you must either change your mind or they will "remove you from the community" (as worded in the post I'm referencing). I'm not certain how any poster has the power to remove a fellow poster from this forum, but at least one poster in this thread has already aimed this type of statement at a fellow poster.

First, could you please link the post you're referencing? I am not trying to remove anyone from the community.

Yes, there is a possiblity that some might attempt to use "unacceptable behavior" as an excuse to "purge" anyone they don't like. Just like there is a possibility Ryan or Lisa will come on the forums and start calling everyone names and telling them to do impossible anatomical feats.

That's one of the reasons I am specifically not asking for anyone to pre-commit to supporting my statements about future unacceptable behavior. Nor am I trying to create a Code of Conduct that can be used in the future.

The only thing I'm trying to do right now that might have future consequences is to rally the community to the idea that the community must confront unacceptable behavior when it arises. I am asking the community for input on what that should look like, but absent a better model I will use the model I personally think best.

I believe very strongly that any attempts to deal with unacceptable behavior should always be about very specific acts. That way, the community can be clear on whether it is opposing or defending those acts rather than opposing or defending some nebulous Code that might get misapplied in the future.

[ZenPagan]

Nihimon wrote:

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

... a generalized list I would adhere to and uphold on these forums, if they are applied judiciously.

It is not my personal goal to create a Code of Conduct. I think that's a fine endeavor for the community, but I just want it to be clear that this is not the desired end-state for me.

My personal goal is to create an example of the community "being its own best defense" and calling out unacceptable behavior before it is allowed to perpetuate and devolve into greater and greater toxicity. This is why I keep asking the question: "what will it look like to be intolerant of unacceptable behavior?" I believe it will look a lot like one poster - civilly and respectfully - pointing out very specific acts, stating they are unacceptable, and asking the community to support that position.

If anyone has a better model for how to go about being intolerant of unacceptable behavior, I would be very interested in seeing it. I did not ask the question rhetorically.

This is exactly what has happened in the past. People have called people out. Community members have backed the side they believe is correct.

Frankly once done it should be moved on from not revisited over and over ad nauseam. You have said things I regard as bad for the community. I have said things others regard as bad for the community. So have most of the large scale posters frankly.

Constantly fighting the same battle over and over is non constructive to the community. You have told us your opinion about the affair. So has Bluddwolf. It helps no one to keep having the same fight over and over across multiple threads.

We all have agreed it would be nice to be civil and to engage posters playstyles to persuade them to stay rather than telling them to just leave. That is all thats needed so lets move on as this bickering is in my opinion destructive behaviour .

[Nihimon]

Papaver wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I don't think anyone is seeking to silence an opinion

Yes someone is

Nihimon wrote:

One of the many reasons it's so critically important for the community itself to censure certain behaviors, and even certain viewpoints (such as arguing that griefing is actually good for the game).

Edit: never mind! Confused a u with a o :)

I want to thank you for having the honesty and honor to self-correct. Yes, there is a big difference between "censor" and "censure".

[Bluddwolf]

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

How would you respond to a person who came here and said, " I'm here to be a noob killing griefer because I can. If I get booted, I'll just roll on another account. I don't care what your community norms are, I'm a griefer"?

Nihimon wrote:

I would tell them this is not the game for them.

Nihimon wrote:

I was wrong. I shouldn't tell them this isn't the game for them. I should work to explain how this game will not support that particular play style, and encourage them to adopt a play style that will be supported.

I can appreciate that you have seen that there needs to be balance. If you wish to create an atmosphere of respect and community, there can be no "outcasts" or no one exempt from the norms we hope to promote.

I know you are uncomfortable with calling out devs on the comments that they make. But, the title they hold does not grant them our acceptance of being disrespected.

I had a school nurse when I was in middle school. She taught our Health class. She often smoked in class (yeah it was that long ago), and one day while teaching us about the dangers of smoking, she was puffing away. None of us challenged her on the hypocrisy of her actions, and a good number of us did not take her warnings seriously either.

"Practice what you Preach" is the operative concept for fighting all forms of hypocrisy.

Is there any dispute on these simple codes?

Be Welcoming - Welcome everyone
Be A Good Visitor - Don't introduce yourself with a negative
Be Helpful - Answer Questions and Direct to others who may know more
Be Instructive - Direct them to what we know and all parts of it
Be Patient - Give the person a chance to qualify their statement
Be Forthright - Get to the Point and Don't hide your true agenda
Be Open - Be Open to Different Points of View
Be Honest - "This is what we believe to be true"; show both sides.
Be Brave - Admit when you are wrong; Respectfully point out when you feel someone else wrong.
Be Respectful - This is the umbrella that all the others are covered by.

I have in the past violated one or more of these myself, but now that I have put them in writing, feel free to redirect my memory back to them.

I also don't have an answer for how we as a community address someone that purposefully violates these for the sake of being a Forum Troll! But, usually these types are moderated by the Moderator. It is probably best left in their hands anyway.

[Nihimon]

Bluddwolf wrote:

It is a no solution argument to get into what is Fundamental to the game design and what us not. There will be argument without any chance to reach agreement.

It seems obvious to me that whatever Ryan Dancey says is fundamental to the success of the game is in fact fundamental to the success of the game.

That doesn't mean there won't be people who refuse to accept it, or fight to change it.

[Nihimon]

Gedichtewicht wrote:

Maybe it is time to take a step back from this topic, do something else/have a good nights sleep/breath deeply, whatever takes the mind of this and calms down.

I very much enjoyed taking a break and spending the day with my wife. I tend to rise earlier than she on the weekends. so I have a little time now to try to make myself understood, but I will probably step away again after this.

[Nihimon]

Jazzlvraz wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

I would ask you all, again, what will it look like to have a community that is intolerant of unacceptable behavior?

Unfortunately, I think we've moved further from it by trying so hard to codify and regularise it.

I completely agree, which is why I want it to be very clear that I'm not trying to create a set of rules to be applied in the future.

[Nihimon]

Mbando wrote:

You guys are arguing about low order concerns like whether the game is "about" PvP, what constitutes griefing and incivility, etc.

For the record, I'm not trying to define "what constitutes griefing and incivility", I'm trying to create a model for what it will look like to be intolerant of unacceptable behavior.

Mbando wrote:

We should find some game to play in now, regardless of potential in game role or chartered company--some sort of "PFO Community" guild, and get to know each other in cooperative ways.

I agree. We've been discussing this on T7V's forums, and I know some members of TEO will likely join us. I think it would be great if a bunch of other folks from the forums joined us as well.

[Bluddwolf]

Mbando wrote:

We should find some game to play in now, regardless of potential in game role or chartered company--some sort of "PFO Community" guild, and get to know each other in cooperative ways.

There is already. PFOFan TS has a group in Lord of the Rings Online. We meet on Tuesday Nights from about 8:00 PM EST until around 11:00 PM EST.

LOTRO is a perfect game because it is F2P and very casual friendly. You can also keep track of everyone elses level and play catch up if you need to.

But also.... Where is everyone that could be in PFo Fan TS?? There is such a difference of perception when you talk to some one, as opposed to writing on these forums.

[Hobs the Short]

Nihimon wrote:

Or do you think there's a particular number of posters who should be able to silence my opinion? Remember, there are lots of goons and they could easily show up in force and exceed that number...

To the contrary, I do not think there is a set number, nor should there be. Previously, you seemed (my interpretation only) disappointed that more people had not backed you up, so I was curious as to what number would make you feel that the community shared your views and sanctioned your actions.

This is the part of my question that I'm far more concerned about: "...to validate the silencing of another poster's opinion because you (and your backers) deem it unacceptable?"

You have reposted this question several times (I answered it earlier): "I would ask you all, again, what will it look like to have a community that is intolerant of unacceptable behavior?"

As I said with my first answer, it would likely be a wonderful thing. That is the desired "end". My concern all along has been the "means" by which that end is reached. Honestly, I think the means that have been employed thus far are dividing this community more than unifying it, and thereby, moving us further from the ends you seek.

This discussion, as others have said, has seemed to raise people's awareness of Ryan's concerns and everyone will hopefully be more conscientious before posting what might be viewed as unacceptable. I have faith in this community that if someone should post something truly unacceptable in the future, that people will respond. However, to continue past this, as others have also posted, seems potentially damaging to the well being of the community.

[ZenPagan]

Hobs the Short wrote:

This discussion, as others have said, has seemed to raise people's awareness of Ryan's concerns and everyone will hopefully be more conscientious before posting what might be viewed as unacceptable. To continue past this, as others have also posted, seems potentially damaging to the well being of the community.

I will reiterate what I said above

We all have agreed it would be nice to be civil and to engage posters playstyles to persuade them to stay rather than telling them to just leave. That is all thats needed so lets move on as this bickering is in my opinion destructive behaviour .

So I am rallying behind Hobs here

[Nihimon]

ZenPagan wrote:

Constantly fighting the same battle over and over is non constructive to the community.

Respectfully, I disagree.

If that battle is over whether the community here is or is not intolerant of unacceptable behavior, then I think it must be fought. Different people are fighting this battle in different ways, but both sides are fighting it, over and over, across a number of threads. I will not unilaterally surrender.

What is at stake is nothing less than the soul of the community.

Will we collectively say that it is unacceptable to: 1) attack new posters who express trepidation at the thought of Open PvP; and 2) attack posters who try to assuage those concerns by referencing Ryan's stated design goals?

Or will those things become acceptable?

Or worse yet, will it become unacceptable to defend Ryan's stated design goals to minimize meaningless PvP at every turn?

[Bluddwolf]

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

It is a no solution argument to get into what is Fundamental to the game design and what us not. There will be argument without any chance to reach agreement.

It seems obvious to me that whatever Ryan Dancey says is fundamental to the success of the game is in fact fundamental to the success of the game.

That doesn't mean there won't be people who refuse to accept it, or fight to change it.

What Ryan had once claimed was "fundamental" has already been rolled back on and now stated that those systems may require tremendous changes throughout the EE process.

There was a time that Settlement Alignment was limited to 1-step for settlement and then 1 step for company to settlement relationship. This has been modified, removing the 1 -step from both settlement and company.

Ryan had also stated that we should not consider (too much) concerns of alignment, reputation or policies for our EE settlements. That there is no long term impact that an EE settlement should concern itself with. Building a diverse and strong settlement community takes precedence.

Boutique EE settlements will fall very quickly to the surge of OE, organized companies, looking for a settlement hex to plant their flag in. Is what I took from Ryan's full statement.

[Jazzlvraz]

Until we started arguing about people insulting new posters, that was a tiny minority of what was happening here. Now almost nothing else gets talked about.

That argues, to me, that we should go back to talking about *anything* else, and deal with those posts one-off when they occur...as we used to do. Most of us welcome new posters, correct their mis-impressions, and invite them to join the conversations.

It's hard to imagine we're going to lose any significant fraction of the potential community if someone's greeted by one un-helpful post, if it's surrounded by welcome. People will see what's really here.

I'll use an Internet meme a bit more graphic than Rafkin's suggestion: "Don't be a dick", and this place'll be better than it is today. But I agree with Rafkin: we have to stop talking about this, because we've made no forward, and a lot of backward, progress since we started.

[Nihimon]

Hobs the Short wrote:

I do not think there is a set number, nor should there be.

I'm glad we agree.

Quote:

Previously, you seemed (my interpretation only) disappointed that more people had not backed you up...

Quite the contrary, I am very grateful for the support that I have received. I think a number of people have made really fantastic points.

I also think my stated purpose, which has been pretty consistent through the whole thread, is starting to sink in more. I can't know if it's being done deliberately, but there have been a number of posts that misrepresented what I was doing here - implying I was trying to build a Kingdom, or silence opposition, or define a Code of Conduct, etc.

Hobs the Short wrote:

This is the part of my question that I'm far more concerned about: "...to validate the silencing of another poster's opinion because you (and your backers) deem it unacceptable?"

...

However, to continue past this, as others have also posted, seems potentially damaging to the well being of the community.

I regret that I am forced to make the majority of my case in text on these forums. I would like to join you all in a voice chat, but most of the time that I am free to post on the boards, I'm not really in a good position to be in a voice chat.

I hear you loud and clear telling me that my specific behavior in continuing to fight this battle is unacceptable. I hear you qualifying it with "potentially", and I hear you trying to be as nonconfrontational as possible.

I respect your right to tell me what I'm doing is unacceptable, and I take it seriously. I have taken a long, hard look in the mirror - before I started this thread - about it. And I have come to a stark conclusion.

There is a battle going on for the soul of the community. There are forces at work, right here and right now, that seek to make it unacceptable to defend the vision Ryan has for making PFO welcoming to players who avoid Open PvP like the plague because of their past experience with griefers. There are folks who are actively fighting this battle, and if they are not opposed, they will win.

I hope you can see that I've honestly considered the situation, and given you a valid explanation for my actions.

I would ask you to seriously consider my viewpoint.

If I'm right about what's going on, are my actions still unacceptable?

[Nihimon]

ZenPagan wrote:

We all have agreed it would be nice to be civil and to engage posters playstyles to persuade them to stay rather than telling them to just leave.

There was a time I thought this was true, but Bluddwolf specifically rejected the idea that he had done anything wrong, and specifically insisted that he would do it all again.

[Papaver]

Nihimon wrote:

I want to thank you for having the honesty and honor to self-correct. Yes, there is a big difference between "censor" and "censure".

Yo, check your inbox.

[Nihimon]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

It is a no solution argument to get into what is Fundamental to the game design and what us not. There will be argument without any chance to reach agreement.

It seems obvious to me that whatever Ryan Dancey says is fundamental to the success of the game is in fact fundamental to the success of the game.

That doesn't mean there won't be people who refuse to accept it, or fight to change it.

What Ryan had once claimed was "fundamental" has already been rolled back on and now stated that those systems may require tremendous changes throughout the EE process.

There was a time that Settlement Alignment was limited to 1-step for settlement and then 1 step for company to settlement relationship. This has been modified, removing the 1 -step from both settlement and company.

Ryan had also stated that we should not consider (too much) concerns of alignment, reputation or policies for our EE settlements. That there is no long term impact that an EE settlement should concern itself with. Building a diverse and strong settlement community takes precedence.

Boutique EE settlements will fall very quickly to the surge of OE, organized companies, looking for a settlement hex to plant their flag in. Is what I took from Ryan's full statement.

This is a misrepresentation of what happened.

Ryan stated that making a game that was free of the grief and toxicity common to Open PvP games is fundamental. He stated that their approach - relying on Alignment, Reputation, the Moderators, and the Community - is fundamental.

He never stated that the 1-step rule was fundamental. The 1-step rule, and the other things you mention, are merely the way those fundamental principles are expressed in the game. You can change the expression of them a billion times, and the fundamental principles are still the same.

[Jazzlvraz]

Nihimon wrote:

...specifically insisted that he would do it all again.

I've not yet heard why anyone should care if he does it all again? His voice carries no more weight than anyone else's.

If a dozen people welcome the new poster, and answer his or her questions with equanimity, poise...and links, of course...why are we acting as if the new person will see the one response as more indicative of the community than all the others?

[ZenPagan]

Nihimon wrote:

ZenPagan wrote:

We all have agreed it would be nice to be civil and to engage posters playstyles to persuade them to stay rather than telling them to just leave.

There was a time I thought this was true, but Bluddwolf specifically rejected the idea that he had done anything wrong, and specifically insisted that he would do it all again.

If he does it again then call him out again. Frankly these threads and your melodrama about fighting for the soul of the community are in my opinion dividing the community and causing more argument that the initial Realmwalker incident ever did.

[Nihimon]

Jazzlvraz wrote:

Until we started arguing about people insulting new posters, that was a tiny minority of what was happening here. Now almost nothing else gets talked about.

That argues, to me, that we should go back to talking about *anything* else, and deal with those posts one-off when they occur...as we used to do. Most of us welcome new posters, correct their mis-impressions, and invite them to join the conversations.

It's hard to imagine we're going to lose any significant fraction of the potential community if someone's greeted by one un-helpful post, if it's surrounded by welcome. People will see what's really here.

I'll use an Internet meme a bit more graphic than Rafkin's suggestion: "Don't be a dick", and this place'll be better than it is today. But I agree with Rafkin: we have to stop talking about this, because we've made no forward, and a lot of backward, progress since we started.

I understand the concern. I really do. At the same time, I understand what's at stake.

I also remember the person who was insulted coming back and thanking me specifically for defending him, and trying to paint an honest and accurate picture of the game.

I can't help but believe that there are other folks reading this, afraid to express their support, but nevertheless grateful that someone is standing up for the idea that: 1) it is unacceptable to attack posters because they're worried about Open PvP being a grief-fest; and 2) it is unacceptable to attack posters for trying to assuage those worries.

It's very simple.

Bluddwolf has stated unequivocally that he did nothing wrong when he told Realmwalker to leave, and when he ridiculed those of us who were trying to explain to Realmwalker that PFO would be different.

It is either acceptable to do those things, or it is unacceptable to do those things.

Which is it?

And understand, very clearly, that "just drop it and move along" means "it's acceptable".