The censoring

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:No, but posts like that get removed all the time

Good.

Going onto someone else's property and comparing them to mass murderers...

Yeah, its removing posts of that sort that is the problem. /s

No, you're wrong. Hyperbole is used to make points on message boards all the time. The problem was that Gaile read and responded to that post as if it was a personal attack when it wasn't. That's the entire reason there's an issue with how these boards are moderated that players are largely united in criticizing here.

It's not an appropriate way to moderate boards. End of discussion.

Also - "Someone else's property"? Lol, the players fund these boards, just like they fund the game. What a silly remark.

[lagrangewei.8516]

the moderator here suck, but what can you do? i won't want anet to waste more money on the forum. just deal with it.the forum IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be part of the product.

[Cantatus.4065]

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@Cantatus.4065 said:

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

@"Healix.5819" said:They have this policy where they're not allowed to edit posts, so if you quote someone, they'll delete your entire post if the quote is. It's pretty funny, since I've had it happen in the support forums a few times over the years when answering multiple people's problems at once.

Zedek.8932 said:This nothing was 1 infraction point. Great, isn't it?

Just because there's nothing there doesn't meant it was nothing. They could have simply forgot to quote it. Maybe it was your post on March 7th in

how many accounts

?

You're right. We don't edit posts because doing so can open the door to concerns about "stealth edits" or unscrupulous intrusion into a person's own comments. Therefore we have a strictly hands-off policy on comments. We may edit a topic line to make it more topical -- not "Anet, look at this" but "Bug: Weapon issue" -- because that reduces click-bait posts and helps members know at a glance if they want to read a thread. But the body -- we try to be completely out of it. And that does mean that if someone quotes it, we are then required to remove their post, too, to eliminate the already-removed comments by the person who was quoted.

I'm willing to consider another process, but this is awkward:

• [Comments removed because they quoted a thread that was removed]

• And here's my answer to that!....

I mean, what is the "that" there? :)

I feel like this is something that should absolutely get more consideration. When someone writes several constructive paragraphs in response to someone else and crosses the line once, removing the entire post is often going to be seen as too heavy-handed. If someone responds to two different people in a single post, being helpful to one and a little rude to the other, anything in that post that could've been beneficial to the community is lost because it came with (potentially unrelated) rudeness. Removing rudeness from the boards makes sense and isn't something I'm going to complain about, but should it come at the cost of anything good that accompanies it? Like someone else said, it gives the perception of things being very black and white here. If your post has the slightest tinge of gray, it's gone.

More than that, removing someone

else's

post purely because they quoted the person and didn't break any rules themselves is ridiculous and strikes me as being over-the-top. I can understand why it's done (since it makes no sense to remove something that broke a rule one place but leave it visible somewhere else), but you're effectively punishing someone for nothing other than utilizing a board feature. I know I've had posts that have been removed because of this, and it has always rubbed me the wrong way (especially since I'm not even notified of it, which is sort of rude in itself). While I know I didn't break any rules myself, I still can't help but feel as though I'm being chastised. As a result, it's made me more reluctant in posting or responding to people, because I don't know if I'll come back to the board a couple hours later and have the post that I put a lot of thought into deleted because I accidentally quoted the wrong thing (or quoted the person who quoted the wrong thing). Not to mention it also has the effect of breaking up conversations and killing threads. I've come back to threads before that seem to become really disjointed when a conversation is going in an entirely different direction all of the sudden since several posts worth of context have been gutted.

Frankly, I think this is something that does more harm than good because it's simultaneously removing a lot of productive things from the boards to scrub away the unproductive. While I can understand wanting to avoid being accused of making "stealth edits", I've been a member of

many

forums where the moderators will edit out offenses while leaving anything that doesn't break rules (in fact, that's how most I've posted on operate). As long as there is full transparency and some oversight within Anet (which, based on my experience moderating forums in the past, I suspect already exists since software I've used before allows admins to access edit logs), it tends to work. Rather than deleting my post because I mistakenly quoted something that broke a rule, why not just edit out the quote and leave the response so long as it's not violating a rule itself? If someone posts something extremely helpful but says one rude thing, why not remove the rude thing with a note why? Or, why not warn the person and give them a chance to fix it themselves?

Right now, though, you have a policy in place that is set up to remove helpful and productive posts as a consequence, often from people who haven't done anything wrong. Surely you can see how that would give people the perception that censoring here is too extreme. And honestly, even speaking as someone who I can't recall ever getting in trouble for violating a forum rule, it'd take a lot to convince me that removing the posts of people who don't violate rules is not an extreme action.

If a post you wrote was removed because you quoted someone who had their post removed you get a copy of your post in the mail with the post they are talking about. That way you can still take what you wrote and repost it, just with cutting out what someone else said.

Fair enough. It's possible I missed that. Even so, I still think that's more disruptive to the conversation than it needs to be. Often, someone isn't going to come right back to the board. They might have their (completely innocent) post removed and not come back to the forums for 8 hours, which by that time, the thread has gone in a different direction and the post is no long relevant to the conversation. It also puts more of the burden of moderating on the users than should be the case, in my opinion.

I still stand by my overall point: No one who hasn't broken a rule should have their post removed. That's a shotgun approach to addressing a problem and one that has the potential to remove lots of good content from the boards to scrub away one infraction. It's never a good policy to make people who haven't done anything wrong feel like they have. Nor is it a good policy to have moderators be removing helpful or constructive posts, which is exactly a consequence of how things work here. How does it make any sense to want to foster positive communication on these forums while simultaneously having a policy that allows for its removal?

[Obtena.7952]

@lagrangewei.8516 said:the moderator here suck, but what can you do? i won't want anet to waste more money on the forum. just deal with it.the forum IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be part of the product.

three .... two .... one .... POOF! Pay attention people!

[Mio.5901]

I don't post on these forums for exactly this reason. I use reddit because the moderation is mostly fair, and people can express their opinions without being worried about "distracting" or other excuses used to issue infractions here. Reading this thread speaks volumes about the state of the forums. This problematic behaviour shown by the moderation team, and anet PR, isn't just on this forum, but also on the subreddit. The "anet marketing" reddit post (which if it existed here would be deleted) is an excellent, and eye-opening example of exactly what's wrong, where anet representatives insult and argue with the playerbase for an opinion made about marketing, most of whom are responding very civilly. There is a dangerous trend with the reactions of moderators and frankly it's disheartening. The fact that threads like this exist and that most people are united in this opinion, yet the moderators retain a "we're on the righteous path, it's you the community with the problem" sort of stance just turns me away from everything here. There is a reason threads like this pop up so often, a reason why most people look to reddit for discussion, and why most anet posts are found through reddit, where most of the playerbase can be found. Really makes you think.

An underrated post(not really underrated, as it has lots of thumbs up, just ignored because it has good arguments) by @Cyrin.1035 explains exactly how I feel and is much better articulated than I could make, and of course, it went ignored in favour of dissecting the less articulate and easier to disagree with posts. Here's what he said:

! > @Cyrin.1035 said:! > I'd be happy to refute some of the fallacies with this post.! >! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:! >! > > "First let me start by saying that if anyone has questions about moderation, they need to write us at Forums@Arena.Net. Forum posts are pointless, as they very seldom tell the whole story, and they are (naturally) biased"! >! > This is incorrect, as they serve a very constructive purpose of bringing in alternate opinions of such issues beyond just those between the forum poster and the forum administrator. Discussion is what forums were built on and continue on. They should be allowed to take place under reasonable, nonmanipulative terms. Naturally, the true information can be found from the questions of responders to the OP and to the forum administrator that dealt with the OP's issue. Both can give their side of the story and explanation/reasoning. Most personal topics should be discussed in private. A broad topic about flawed forum moderation that effects all, is a topic for the forum and one the forum admins need to look over and participate in as you have.! > 　! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: "I invite everyone to read the comments and wonder why this is not a worthwhile topic for the forums."! >! > This is most certainly a worthwhile, relevant, and necessary topic on the forums in which it is about. To degrade such a topic or even worse, locking or deleting threads that constructively discuss such a topic is exactly what a thread about censorship is all about. It also deserves the opinions and constructive comments from the forum's users, not a biased two-person conversation in private.! > 　! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: "Explain to me what name-calling and insulting adds to the point of the forum, which is talking about the game."! >! > This depends greatly on what one considers to be an insult and to an even greater and more ridiculous degree, what is considered an insult on this particular forum by its admins. There is the obvious and blatant insult, the insinuating insult, the sarcastic insult, and then there is the unacceptable by GW 2 forum admins insult. One that is inconsistent and sometimes based on subjective opinion.! >! > I could pick apart every response a forum admin or another forum member has posted to another forum member and find several examples of words, phrases, metaphors, ect that I personally or others might consider general insults, indirect insults, or personal insults. The line between subjective and objective is very inconsistent here.! >! > I've been on forums of varying types and worked as a hired associate on gaming forums smaller and larger than GW 2. There is a need for strict policy and moderation. Partly for general forum control and the other part for the reputation and marketing integrity of the product in which the forum is based on. GW 2 forum admins do a great job maintaining both, yet they have gone partly beyond necessity to the point of exaggeration and assumption. That "bias" they like to point out often goes both ways. The only reason one matters over the other is because one of them belongs to the one who controls this domain. Therefore the one who ultimately controls the conversation.! >! > I've seen other forums do this type of moderation as well and although it keeps a certain amount of dedicated posters and keeps away a lot of destructive posters, it also eliminates a vast majority of intelligent, constructive posters that avoid such forums due to their lack of authenticity and support for true discussion. They don't want to have to worry about offending the company or making the company look bad. They just want to give honest opinions and engage with other posters in a natural conversation where one may be losing focus and it becomes necessary for the other to point it out to them. On a GW 2 forum, if you point out a problem in another poster that is detrimental to the constructive conversation, this is sometimes considered "insulting" and therefore censored in some way. This prevents accurate and truly constructive discussion.! >! > Therefore, the opinions you get on a forum like this will likely represent an even smaller portion of the entire community that would have liked to participate here. It also does not help that the forum wasn't created with a well-though-out and detailed forum policy that any proper forum is built upon.! >! >! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:"They look to an official forum as a place to converse about the game, and not a place where they need to be cautious of stating their thoughts because they might be flamed, insulted, name-called, or attacked by another member."! >! > Or censored, have their posts deleted, or account penalized for posting what most of the general public would consider to be non-insulting. I'm sure they didn't come for that either.! > 　! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:"In your case, you insulted a member, calling them condescending. You did not say their comments were condescending, you said they were condescending. That's insulting,"! >! > This is exaggerated and the epitome of what is wrong with the current forum administration. To claim that calling someone "condescending" is an insult is very ignorant, assumptive, subjective, and possibly inaccurate.! >! > Telling someone that they are condescending or being condescending is an objective description of someone who may in-fact be insulting this person. A poster should be able to inform the one they are responding to of this so that they can continue their conversation in a constructive way. These types of assumptions are not something a forum administrator should or needs to be involved with. It's both redundant and a waste of their time.! >! > If someone tells me I am incorrect in one of my statements, should I report them for insulting me? What about if someone calls the images that another forum user posted of their character, "ugly"? Should they be reported for insulting? What if they call their images beautiful? Maybe the user who posted those images feels uncomfortable and feels harassed by such a comment. Did this user intend it as an insult? What makes you qualified to discern and determine what the intention was behind a poster's words that are not blatantly insulting? Do you know the poster? Is it a lot easier just to label it and sweep it away because you do not know the intention? The only justification for such thought and actions is that this forum is in the mods control and they have final action on the post's future. But that does not make them accurate or justified in their choices and they should not be falsely telling posters that they were wrong when in some cases they were right.! >
! >! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: "contributes nothing of value, etc., etc."! >! > Deleting conversations that met forum policy, stayed on-topic, were constructive towards the game, and had virtually no insults, also contributes nothing of value, and alternatively, removes value that did exist on the forums.! > 　! >! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: "It may take a little more sensitivity to post here than on a fansite or other forum."! >! > This is incorrect. It does not take "a little more sensitivity". It takes a very dedicated, assumptive, over-the-top, ridiculous, and artificial amount of sensitivity to post on this forum. Even so much that those who have never had a policy problem with their posts are finding themselves surprised to find their cheerful, supportive posts censored to some degree. So much that if you are not blowing sunshine up and around every poster and thing on this forum, you should be on grounds for punishment.! >! > Perhaps we should all be offended by everything and anything if it bothers us just a little. Such as... the "jail" wording and reference with the account occurrences. I feel very offended by this and I think it's too harsh and insulting to the forum users. Why can't it be the "time-out corner" or the "break room". Should I consider reporting or writing a ticket or an e-mail about this? Will it be worth the time of the forum admins?! >! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: "Even sarcasm is usually ok, unless it "steps on the toes" of another user by insulting them directly."! >! > And how do you discern what steps on the toes of another user when it is not blatant, obvious, or called out by the user? I've seen plenty of posts where there was "stepping on toes" with sarcasm. How many complaints and reports should I send in before the mod team realizes how much of a waste of time dealing with that is?! >! > Some might think all sarcasm is very condescending, deceptive, and extremely rude to use by anyone and to anyone. They may be deeply offended and insulted by such a thing. Should all sarcasm be considered insulting in this way or do you still label such a thing as "usually ok"?! >! > Where is the line drawn? Who discerns these situations and what are they basing their discernment on? Bias? Unwritten policy? Exaggerated use of their policy? Where is that definitive line that should have been included and made clear in the beginning?! >! > Remember that posters, just as the forum admins, also give their time and effort to creating posts. Deleting them based on inconsistent rules and expecting them to just accept that action, further weakens forum admin credibility and forum policy credibility. To the point where it's not about policy. It's about what is acceptable by the admins based on how they feel or think something is.! > 　! > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: "Maybe that other forum is a cesspool because they don't have the kind of moderation we have."! > This is where ignorance and arrogance come together and is seen often in people that are in some form of control whether it be as a forum administrator or another position of "power".! >! > Being the polar opposite to certain other forums doesn't make the forum a proper or well-run forum. Throwing complete dominance and control over a forum may fix many problems that posters can cause, but it also switches the cause of the problems to the forum administrators.! >! > Deleting, adjusting, censoring and ultimately mixing up posts based on inconsistent policies is also very detrimental to a forum. You cannot have a proper forum when the discussions and forum members are constantly censored or removed for petty or silly reasons.! >! > ------! >! > I do not support the OP's particular argument and based on what was pointed out about them, it sounds like they have intentionally and directly insulted the forum mods.! >! > But there is without a doubt an issue with this forum's moderation in terms of their mods clearly knowing what their policy is and where it stands between objectivity and subjectivity. So far, their current way has negatively affected many users. Both those who are insulting and breaking policy and those who are clearly not and are subject to GW 2's "special" type of forum administration.! >! > The posters here are actually writing paragraphs to ask what is and isn't considered an insult on these forums... That speaks to how well that policy was designed for this forum. Nowhere... on any mainstream forum should the users have to wonder and ask if simple and common words that are safe and acceptable on most other forums, are allowed. That's the kind of overbearing and unnecessary interference that forums do NOT need.! >! > It's your forum. You can do as you please. Or as ANET expects. But do not justify certain actions as if they are right or virtuous when they are neither and blame or insult users because they didn't meet subjective/irrational standards. That is no way to properly run a forum.! >! >! >

[Randulf.7614]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:No, but posts like that get removed all the time

Good.

Going onto someone else's property and comparing them to mass murderers...

Yeah, its removing posts of that sort that is the problem. /s

No, you're wrong. Hyperbole is used to make points on message boards all the time. The problem was that Gaile read and responded to that post as if it was a personal attack when it wasn't. That's the entire reason there's an issue with how these boards are moderated that players are largely united in criticizing here.

It's not an appropriate way to moderate boards. End of discussion.

Also - "Someone else's property"? Lol, the players fund these boards, just like they fund the game. What a silly remark.

It is very much an appropriate way to moderate the forums. Hyperbole in this way ( and usually in general) adds nothing to a constructive, mature discussion whether positive or negative - the only purpose of the forums. Whether other forums use it all the time is irrelevant. Gaile has already stated she or more correctly, the forum team, are enforcing the company rules on what should or should not be allowed, not her own morale compass - something thoroughly covered in detail earlier in this thread.

The players also do not fund the boards. We rent the game and we make purchases from it. The forum is not directly paid for by us and therefore we have no appropriation over it. I work in retail, in the same relationship my customers do not pay for my company’s website either.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:No, but posts like that get removed all the time

Good.

Going onto someone else's property and comparing them to mass murderers...

Yeah, its removing posts of that sort that is the problem. /s

No, you're wrong. Hyperbole is used to make points on message boards all the time. The problem was that Gaile read and responded to that post as if it was a personal attack when it wasn't. That's the entire reason there's an issue with how these boards are moderated that players are largely united in criticizing here.

It's not an appropriate way to moderate boards. End of discussion.

Also - "Someone else's property"? Lol, the players fund these boards, just like they fund the game. What a silly remark.

It is very much an appropriate way to moderate the forums. Hyperbole in this way ( and usually in general) adds nothing to a constructive, mature discussion whether positive or negative - the only purpose of the forums. Whether other forums use it all the time is irrelevant. Gaile has already stated she or more correctly, the forum team, are enforcing the company rules on what should or should not be allowed, not her own morale compass - something thoroughly covered in detail earlier in this thread.

The players also do not fund the boards. We rent the game and we make purchases from it. The forum is not directly paid for by us and therefore we have no appropriation over it. I work in retail, in the same relationship my customers do not pay for my company’s website either.

It doesn't matter (alone) whether it adds to constructive discussion. Lots of things don't add to constructive discussion. How many one-liner posts that are usually simplistic variations of "your opinion is dumb" exchanged between players don't get moderated on the boards? Is the solution to hire an army of moderators and infract half of the posts that get made? No. Instead, their solution is to only care when it appears too critical of arenanet based on their own personal sensibilities. It's absurd.

And, yes, the players do fund the boards. Literally. And yes, your company's customers pay for your website. Literally.

[Randulf.7614]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

And, yes, the players do fund the boards. Literally. And yes, your company's customers pay for your website. Literally.

This is 100% incorrect, but I wont derail any further by detailing the ins and outs of how and why it is incorrect. If Gaile wishes, she might elaborate on behalf of Anet, but it is without question, an untrue statement even though I can understand why this is believed to be the case.

[Mewcifer.5198]

Comparing people to mass murderers is insulting because not only is it meant to try and shame the person you are talking about by comparing them to something horrible, but it also trivializes the people who lost their lives by comparing their deaths to getting a post removed on the forum.

It is not helpful to the discussion at all. It causes strife and insult.

And, in my eyes at least, it is a cheap trick to try and "win" a discussion by making the implication of "if you disagree with me you are agreeing with mass murderers" .

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

And, yes, the players do fund the boards. Literally. And yes, your company's customers pay for your website. Literally.

This is 100% incorrect, but I wont derail any further by detailing the ins and outs of how and why it is incorrect. If Gaile wishes, she might elaborate on behalf of Anet, but it is without question, an untrue statement even though I can understand why this is believed to be the case.

No, it's 100% correct. If you're referring to the fact that companies build infrastructure around investments, that still only gets developed and maintained as a result of their market and their paying customers.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:Comparing people to mass murderers is insulting because not only is it meant to try and shame the person you are talking about by comparing them to something horrible, but it also trivializes the people who lost their lives by comparing their deaths to getting a post removed on the forum.

It is not helpful to the discussion at all. It causes strife and insult.

And, in my eyes at least, it is a cheap trick to try and "win" a discussion by making the implication of "if you disagree with me you are agreeing with mass murderers" .

You're the one who keeps equating N. Korea with mass murderers. I was just talking about excessive censorship. Your last sentence is also what we commonly call a strawman fallacy.

[Mewcifer.5198]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:Comparing people to mass murderers is insulting because not only is it meant to try and shame the person you are talking about by comparing them to something horrible, but it also trivializes the people who lost their lives by comparing their deaths to getting a post removed on the forum.

It is not helpful to the discussion at all. It causes strife and insult.

And, in my eyes at least, it is a cheap trick to try and "win" a discussion by making the implication of "if you disagree with me you are agreeing with mass murderers" .

You're the one who keeps equating N. Korea with mass murderers. I was just talking about excessive censorship. Your second sentence is also what we commonly call a strawman fallacy.

If you really think what goes on these forums is equal to the amount of censorship that goes on in North Korea then you might need to do a little bit more research as to what happens in North Korea.

Also, a government completely blocking off it's citizens ability to obtain information while simultaneously barring them from ever being able to leave is not even remotely close to having a few posts being removed from an online forum. The comparison is so wildly ridiculous that I am struggling to find the exact words to explain it. It goes beyond apples to oranges. You are comparing a system meant to oppress the entire lives of people while murdering those who attempt to escape it to having some posts removed on a forum.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:Comparing people to mass murderers is insulting because not only is it meant to try and shame the person you are talking about by comparing them to something horrible, but it also trivializes the people who lost their lives by comparing their deaths to getting a post removed on the forum.

It is not helpful to the discussion at all. It causes strife and insult.

And, in my eyes at least, it is a cheap trick to try and "win" a discussion by making the implication of "if you disagree with me you are agreeing with mass murderers" .

You're the one who keeps equating N. Korea with mass murderers. I was just talking about excessive censorship. Your second sentence is also what we commonly call a strawman fallacy.

If you really think what goes on these forums is equal to the amount of censorship that goes on in North Korea then you might need to do a little bit more research as to what happens in North Korea.

Also, a government completely blocking off it's citizens ability to obtain information while simultaneously barring them from ever being able to leave is not even remotely close to having a few posts being removed from an online forum. The comparison is so wildly ridiculous that I am struggling to find the exact words to explain it. It goes beyond apples to oranges. You are comparing a system meant to oppress the entire lives of people while murdering those who attempt to escape it to having some posts removed on a forum.

None of this is pertinent to this discussion. You're being incredibly pedantic about a random off-handed remark that shouldn't have been taken that seriously. Presumably, it's because you're grasping at whatever you can to try to weaken my argument, which really isn't that effective.

[Leo G.4501]

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

There's a world of difference between "no purpose" and "no impact". A worthless feature can, indeed, have a ton of impact if it's abused, and this system, as I have already illustrated, can easily be abused. It's not going to do anything but give someone a "wild card" to try to shut someone else up with the line "you have x down votes, you should just shut up".

You can't shut someone up with that line.

...and it's never stopped anyone from trying, has it?

So?

So what does it bring to the forum? What intrinsic value does it have? If it's just another "my kitten is bigger" thing, which it seemingly would be, there's no reason for it. I'm not a fan of upvoting either, by the way, but it's a lot less likely to lead to people over on 4chan high fiving each other for "pwning that noob on the forums".

Well firstly, if someone has to resort to bringing up the number of thumbs up or thumbs down, they likely are not very good at discussion or are just a [kitten] anyway.

Secondly, you're asking me to answer the question I asked that started this line of discussion. I asked you what actual effect or impact the thumbs down feature has and presented Gaile's comment that an effect was there. Then I presented another of her posts expressing two positions, one favorable and one less favorable, a binary set of options where the favorable position is wholly duplicated by the thumbs down feature. The logic I'm leading you through is the thumbs down feature, whatever non-tangible impact it might have, might have been considered for removal based on premises that contradict their own rules. Think of the thumbs down feature as a post and people are reporting that post to the moderators to be removed. On what premise do they argue to have someone's "I disagree" post removed?

I have asked twice, once in the post you just quoted, what value it has. I disagree that it's a needed function on the forum. See, I disagreed with you, and didn't require a "Thumb Down" to do it. If it added something to the forums, it might be worth having, but it clearly doesn't have any value, or you could have stated an objective value that it has. As to getting a post removed, if you find it offensive, you report it. If the powers that be agree, it's going to be gone. If you're concern is that someone is disagreeing with you, but you can't get a ton of friends to all come on and down vote 'em for it, well that's a shame, isn't it? Maybe you should try proving them wrong, or that you're opinion has merit, if it's not a case of right and wrong, and neither of those require a down vote button to achieve.

So you feel that I must answer your questions while you ignore mine? I asked you, "on what premise does someone argue to remove an "I disagree" post"? I didn't ask you to justify reporting it, I asked, if someone posts "I disagree", what premise would you use to have that post removed. Again, don't tell me "well if the mods agree to remove it", give me an example or an argument or hypothetical or something that, if replied to with "I disagree" is grounds to report it.

To answer your questions again...

"If you're concern is that someone is disagreeing with you, but you can't get a ton of friends to all come on and down vote 'em for it, well that's a shame, isn't it?"

I never said nor agreed to any of those premises and even if I did, none of that has any actual effect on anyone. Not the individual being down voted, not the ones down voting nor the onlookers that aren't involved.

"Maybe you should try proving them wrong, or that you're opinion has merit, if it's not a case of right and wrong, and neither of those require a down vote button to achieve."

I have. My opinion does have merit, you're just not willing to accept someone's given argument. And I'm not arguing for a thumbs down button, I'm arguing the reason it was removed contradicts itself and the rules of the forums.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

On a side note, mad props to Gaile for her and the moderation team's patience. Some of these comments would've got you insta-banned if I was in charge. :#

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Ardenwolfe.8590 said:On a side note, mad props to Gaile for her and the moderation team's patience. Some of these comments would've got you insta-banned if I was in charge. :#

Which would most likely not be appropriate, unless you're talking about direct attacks and harassment of individuals in the thread or at Arenanet.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Which would most likely not be appropriate.

You can believe me, if this was any other thread and discussion . . . it would've been very appropriate.

[robertthebard.8150]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:Just going to poke in and reiterate the fact that the infraction points are indeed temporary. Over the few years I've been active on the forums, I've certainly gotten more total infraction points than are necessary for action (I think my total is around 5 or 6, and I believe action is taken at 3), but since it was all spaced out, I've seen no punishment.

I don't dispute that I earned every one of them (I know I can get rather hot-blooded and stubborn), but ANet's forum moderation policy is definitely set up to be forgiving of the occasional bad day.

On the same logic of infraction points and their lack of impact, I still cannot understand how the thumbs down feature, which is also divorced from any meaninful impact on the post or the account, was deemed as negative and needed to be removed. The continued existance of the thumbs up feature at all is a testament to the lack of consistency and purpose of the decisions made with regards to the forums.

What's the intent? In DDO's forums, they had to disable it because, there, if you got enough down votes, you couldn't post on the forums. All it took was to go to what passed as the meta build forum there, and question the wisdom of their design choices, when they're posting builds that required max past lives, and considerable investment in stat tomes, for new players. I know about this first hand, as I got hit with that one. Up votes here add badges, as I can attest to since I've picked up a couple since I started posting, were down votes going to take away from that rep? If so, it's a very easily abused system, that could "punish" someone for having the audacity to disagree with someone else. If it served no function at all, then it doesn't matter if it exists at all, other than for someone being able to say "hey look, you suck so bad you got x down votes, maybe you should just stop posting", which is detrimental to a healthy forum too. "but reddit..." doesn't cut it, any more than pointing to Steam reviews as a reliable measure of how good a game is. Take a look at what happened to the original version of Skyrim as an example, since the community was unhappy with new mod system, and voted down a game that isn't even eligible for it.

Downvotes had no impact. None. It didn't take away posting privlages, it didn't remove rep, it didn't affect badges.

If your argument is that if it had no impact then it didn't need to exist, then can you explain Gaile's post here:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:Hey Neural: I'm really accustomed to being downvoted. I've had a history of downvoted "don't like the message" or even "shoot the messenger" comments on more than one forum. :D So removing the feature wasn't because of the downvoting of an official thread or threads, and it wasn't prompted by a overage of company sensitivity. The decision was based on community experience, observation, and member input.

Actually, the discussion of downvote removal initially started because reports from our European team members indicated the feature was quite disruptive on the non-EN forums. From there, widespread, sometimes private, feedback resulted in its removal across all languages. Feature consistency is desirable in a multi-language forum, therefore it would be all in or all out for any feature.

And the purpose of a downvote would be to better facilitate the former rather than the latter of the following example:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:Let's step back and look Big Picture. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your idea," It's quite another to say "I disagree with your idea, I think you're stupid to offer it, and hey, is that rumor I heard about you having stinky feet true?" :dizzy:

There's a world of difference between "no purpose" and "no impact". A worthless feature can, indeed, have a ton of impact if it's abused, and this system, as I have already illustrated, can easily be abused. It's not going to do anything but give someone a "wild card" to try to shut someone else up with the line "you have x down votes, you should just shut up".

You can't shut someone up with that line.

...and it's never stopped anyone from trying, has it?

So?

So what does it bring to the forum? What intrinsic value does it have? If it's just another "my kitten is bigger" thing, which it seemingly would be, there's no reason for it. I'm not a fan of upvoting either, by the way, but it's a lot less likely to lead to people over on 4chan high fiving each other for "pwning that noob on the forums".

Well firstly, if someone has to resort to bringing up the number of thumbs up or thumbs down, they likely are not very good at discussion or are just a [kitten] anyway.

Secondly, you're asking me to answer the question I asked that started this line of discussion. I asked you what actual effect or impact the thumbs down feature has and presented Gaile's comment that an effect was there. Then I presented another of her posts expressing two positions, one favorable and one less favorable, a binary set of options where the favorable position is wholly duplicated by the thumbs down feature. The logic I'm leading you through is the thumbs down feature, whatever non-tangible impact it might have, might have been considered for removal based on premises that contradict their own rules. Think of the thumbs down feature as a post and people are reporting that post to the moderators to be removed. On what premise do they argue to have someone's "I disagree" post removed?

I have asked twice, once in the post you just quoted, what value it has. I disagree that it's a needed function on the forum. See, I disagreed with you, and didn't require a "Thumb Down" to do it. If it added something to the forums, it might be worth having, but it clearly doesn't have any value, or you could have stated an objective value that it has. As to getting a post removed, if you find it offensive, you report it. If the powers that be agree, it's going to be gone. If you're concern is that someone is disagreeing with you, but you can't get a ton of friends to all come on and down vote 'em for it, well that's a shame, isn't it? Maybe you should try proving them wrong, or that you're opinion has merit, if it's not a case of right and wrong, and neither of those require a down vote button to achieve.

So you feel that I must answer your questions while you ignore mine? I asked you, "on what premise does someone argue to remove an "I disagree" post"? I didn't ask you to justify reporting it, I asked, if someone posts "I disagree", what premise would you use to have that post removed. Again, don't tell me "well if the mods agree to remove it", give me an example or an argument or hypothetical or something that, if replied to with "I disagree" is grounds to report it.

To answer your questions again...

"If you're concern is that someone is disagreeing with you, but you can't get a ton of friends to all come on and down vote 'em for it, well that's a shame, isn't it?"

I never said nor agreed to any of those premises and even if I did, none of that has any actual effect on anyone. Not the individual being down voted, not the ones down voting nor the onlookers that aren't involved.

"Maybe you should try proving them wrong, or that you're opinion has merit, if it's not a case of right and wrong, and neither of those require a down vote button to achieve."

I have. My opinion does have merit, you're just not willing to accept someone's given argument. And I'm not arguing for a thumbs down button, I'm arguing the reason it was removed contradicts itself and the rules of the forums.

I did, in fact, answer your question, that you may not like the answer doesn't qualify as "I have to answer yours but you're not answering mine", it simply means that you've chosen to ignore the answer instead. I'm still waiting for an explanation of some kind of inherent value in a down vote button. "Because I want it, and don't see the harm" doesn't give me an answer to my question. It just restates your opinion on the matter, which I already know. That you believe it should be here is not an inherent value, nor does your belief that it needs to be here add anything to the forums in general. Of what benefit would this button be to the community? What does it add to the forums at large, as opposed to what you can take away from it?

[robertthebard.8150]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:No, but posts like that get removed all the time

Good.

Going onto someone else's property and comparing them to mass murderers...

Yeah, its removing posts of that sort that is the problem. /s

No, you're wrong. Hyperbole is used to make points on message boards all the time. The problem was that Gaile read and responded to that post as if it was a personal attack when it wasn't. That's the entire reason there's an issue with how these boards are moderated that players are largely united in criticizing here.

It's not an appropriate way to moderate boards. End of discussion.

Also - "Someone else's property"? Lol, the players fund these boards, just like they fund the game. What a silly remark.

You know, tone is very hard to convey in text, it's a root cause of a lot of issues, and a reason to tone it down when you want to be hyperbolic. I didn't take your post as "tongue in cheek", in context with both the actual post, and your replies since. I didn't take it as a poor effort at hyperbole. I believed it, and you've said nothing to this point that leads to me to believe anything else, other than someone scrambling around trying to get a "good save", or to rationalize a stated position when they realize they may have gone too far. In my opinion, you went too far, and you got away with it, in so far as I can tell. All of which shoots a glaringly big hole in your argument.

[Obtena.7952]

It's fun when people try to defend their behaviour. The problem is: Anet's house, Anet's rules. It's not a hard concept to grasp; it's no different than getting removed from a bar, whether you deserved it or not ... When was the last time any of you argued with the bouncer? I bet that didn't work in your favour did it ...

In fact, every game forum has the SAME RULES; Blizzard's house, Blizzard's rules for WoW ... just name an MMO ... their forums have rules and you have to learn and appreciate what they are .. or you can find yourself getting unwanted attention. There isn't a reason to argue WITH ANET about the rules in THEIR house ... that's just nonsense. If you don't like the rules, don't post here.

[b k.1648]

Hyperbole is indeed used to make points on message boards all the time. It's also a red flag that people use in deciding to ignore the person who made that point, regardless of whether or not the point is valid.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't do it.

If you can't hold an argument without being rude, you're not going to persuade anyone. Your post may as well not exist, even if the moderators are able to leave it there.

[Dashingsteel.3410]

Of course there is a reason to argue with Anet about their rules. If a customer isn't satisfied with a product or customer services, they have a valid reason to voice complaints.

[Dawnpainterz.3914]

This thread is a wonderful little train wreck.Mad props to Gaile though! It's been a while since I've seen any forum staff act with this kind of patience & tact.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Thanks to everyone who contributed thoughtful responses in this thread. Many members have shared our thoughts and I've made quite a lot of attempts to explain our policies and the reasoning behind them. I've learned things, and hope you have, too.

Just a few reminders:

• We review every infraction and will address an appeal if you write Forums@Arena.Net.
• However, most infractions do not result in a significant impact on the account, and we ask that you wait to read the moderator's note before writing, and that after you know those details you write only in cases where the impact was of note, i.e., a suspension, not a one-pointer that had no impact at all. (Yes, you may instinctively want to "clear your name" or argue your case, but let's consider the best use of our resources when the one-pointer does nothing but ask you to please reconsider the way you posted.)
• As many members have pointed out, infractions have a short "shelf life" -- they expire quickly.
• On the other hand, infractions add up, so if you amass a lot of little ones in a short period of time, you may note a result.
• The whole "who determines what's acceptable here?" has been answered, but in fact, what we expect is in the Forums Code of Conduct, the Guild Wars 2 User Agreement, and is explained, in detail, in the Forum Moderation and Infraction System post. We're happy to expand the latter document, if you have feedback on another area requiring clarification.
• One thing I've been thinking about is the ... let's call it the "'Condescending' Incident." I still believe the comment was rude. I still believe it should have been directed at the post and not the poster. But in retrospect, I would not have upheld that infraction if the member's account was otherwise in good standing. Incidents of that kind are individual, and the outcome of a review (or a report) is determined, in part, by someone's account history. You own your account history, so please consider that when you feel compelled to post in a rage, or use insults instead of reasoning. So when you see "All I said was 'poop' and they banned me," consider what else may have happened, how that post may not have been the one -- or the many -- that earned the infraction, and how a ban is incredibly rare, and even a short-term suspension is uncommon, as well.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to e-mail. In the meantime, we'll have a similar conversation again sometime soon, but at this point, I think it's time to close this thread.