The censoring

[Gaile Gray.6029]

To answer an unasked or indirectly asked question: Why is this thread open when others of its type have been closed? The concern with hosting threads of this sort is that they become one-offs, and in a busy forum, those one-offs can dominate the entire view. You come to this forum to talk about GW2, not about somebody's removed comment or merged thread. So individual questions can and should come to Forum@Arena.Net, not to silence the dissent or try to hide any errors that may have happened, but to allow the forums to remain focused on the game.

In the case of this thread, it's been an objective of mine to have more open conversations, and hosting this thread, and joining in it, seems a worthy experiment. It started, as you've probably noted, with a generic statement, not a specific appeal. If we see a number of threads about moderation crop up, that's not a good thing. But if there are questions, I'm happy to try to answer them. And if changes need to be made, I'm happy to consider making them, whilst keeping in mind the purpose of the forums and objectives of the forum community and the company, as well.

[robertthebard.8150]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Honestly I'm surprised at how many people get infracted. I consider myself harsh, and yet I only get a warning/infraction on very rare occasion.

@"ratche.6204" said:Really? It's been my experience with internet discussions that they are over before they begin once one of the parties starts to get insulting. In many discussions I have never once seen a person change their mind when they were "called out" An adult discussion has occasionally ended in a change of heart by one of the parties but not the ones you describe. Trying to teach strangers lessons, or get them to be more introspective online won't work, it didn't work before the internet and it certainly doesn't work with the anonymity of the internet now.

Now trying to teach people like you describe anything is a waste of time and energy.

I believe George Carlin said it best “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

I must put emphasis on the "true" in true insult. If you just start flinging mud at the slightest of provocations, then yes nothing is ever going to get done. But, if there is a serious problem, and there is a serious offense committed, to tell it as is can do wonders. In fact, it is one of the few things I've seen to actually work. Reasonable people rarely get in to full blown arguments, and to that end I've seen water cooler talk be more productive than any fully orchestrated debate. It doesn't always work immediately, but it does take root.

By the time you get somebody brazenly defending a bad idea, the bad information is only the tip of an iceberg. First, they had to arrive to the conclusions that they did. This involves not just the information they have (because, to be frank, you can find anything you want on the internet), but also their personal motives and their worldview. People will believe what they want to, and because they

want

to believe something it is a matter of their character. Second, they have to dismiss contradictory views and information, as well as the people that hold them. Third, they must take the stance that they will propagate and impose this idea with no provocation and without warning, and that they will defend this idea ceaselessly.

This itself takes a certain level of arrogance, as well as a controlling nature (and sadly, this is speaking from personal experience). But ultimately, this all manifests in one of two ways: selfishness, or righteousness. The sense of self is important in either case, whether it is desire or duty. But, both notions are dealt with in the same way: tearing down the self. Make aware the flaws in character, and you can discourage both the foundations for righteousness and the justification for selfishness. We do this, because even if sometimes it is a "waste of energy", ultimately it is sort of cruel to let somebody carry on as described above. Also, because bad ideas can ruin the game we're playing or the community we're playing with.

@"robertthebard.8150" said:After reading the entirety of the tl;dr, I came away with "I'll make 'em see things my way, no matter how many times I have to call them stupid to do it". Here's my question, what happens when you're the one that's wrong? Do you own it, or do you prefer to cover it up with insults? It's a fairly common tactic, especially on the internet, or the phone. In my own experience, name calling and general (edited for television) don't lead to productive discussion, they lead to protracted arguments that wind up with one side or the other getting their feelings hurt, and hitting the report button. I got a permanent forum ban for calling out a moderator's virtue signaling on another MMO forum. I'm not adverse to calling it how I see it, however, I don't see the need to go after the poster, if I can trash the position with facts. If the truth hurts their feelings, or their position, then any evaluation of why is up to them to discern, and it's not for me to point out. In fact, I've agreed not to do so, when I agreed to the tos for the forum, or the game.

This is not a venue where "but my Free Speech" applies. It is a private venue, with clear rules that we agree to follow when we sign up. That it was tl;dr is an excuse for violating it, but it's not a defense for the consequences of violating it. Maybe the 9th Circuit court may find "but my feelings were hurt because they moderated a comment I made that was in violation of their rules", maybe, but even they have had to come down on the side of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Neither is "but I'm right, and if I'm rude enough to them, they'll start to see it".

Let me ease your conscious a bit: You read wrong. That's not my point at all. My point is that when people argue, what they're arguing about often isn't the real issue. I grew up in a low income neighborhood; I've heard enough arguments about midlife crises and smothering paranoia manifest itself as "how loudly you carry the recyclables out to the curb". If you want another example, back in some old game forums, I've seen people get stalked and harassed on the forums. What would happen is, every time one particular person would say something, a particular different person would take issue and argue it down. No matter how benign the post was, this other person would come strolling about to mass-report their posts while declaring everything they've said evil and arguing endlessly on that point. It was all within the rules, of course, but it was plainly obvious that the second guy had an unhealthy obsession with tearing down the first guy, and was only arguing with him on every point to tarnish his image in the community. The actual content of the posts didn't matter much. Though I haven't seen it here, it is sad to say that forum stalking is a common practice in other places. This is a problem that will not solve itself, unless you address the actions directly.

I could pull up other examples on this forum where somebody is arguing something because of reasons not related to the actual subject, but that would break the naming and shaming rules. However I digress:

If you are wrong, the proper thing to do is admit it. Personally I'm a bit more stubborn, since my breadth of reasoning is just strong enough to hold any position indefinitely, but in general I reflect on the debates after the fact and decide if I was in the right, or if I was right.

I am not talking about "name calling". You can see the part where I respond to ratche for the full version, but the tl;dr is this: There's a difference between slander and a truthful insult.

ratche is right when he says that a debate that devolves into name calling was over long before that point.

I wish "trashing their position with facts" was actually a thing, but in my experience it doesn't work. There's a million ways to logically wind around a position, and the greater the wit the more capable someone is at defending a bad idea. Whomever wins in a debate is seldom whom is right.

As far as the free speech goes, it isn't just an American thing. It is a notion adopted by the U.N. itself, largely because the argument for it being an inalienable right is so strong. Fact is, nobody gives me the ability to speak, hold opinions, compare, criticize, condone, or condemn, let alone the ability to enforce this with all the energy one can muster. Nobody surgically implanted my larynx to give me the ability to speak. I have always had it. If you were to drop me on an uninhabited alien planet, I would still have these abilities, even with no government to give them to me. They cannot be taken away; they can only be discourage.

That said, I'm digressing again. My point isn't "muh free speech". It never was. I am saying that sometimes, you should say negative things about other people, because it is constructive and for the benefit of others to do so.

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:I'd like to discuss those comments: What is your qualification as a teacher? Why is your right their wrong? And why do you feel a

game forum

is the proper place to have

anything

to say about someone's "person?"

I would not want to be involved in a community that believed that a

game forum

was intended, or could be part of, someone's "aversion training" or a process of "negative reinforcement."

Leave the moderation to the professionals who can and will objectively and fairly review content and then act with honest, positive intentions to respect all members and make decisions based on member expectations, the company's desires for our forum platform, and our community's greater good. To put it a different way, dn't poke yourself in the chest putting on some ill-thought badge of "Forum Policeman." Or if you want to do that, do it elsewhere. Because you couldn't be more wrong about what is "good for" our community or the people within it.

Nothing you are asking of me is pertinent. There is no qualification necessary as a teacher (although, ironically, I do have 3 years working for a state college), there is no set of "rights" that are being weighed against each other, and what I feel about the appropriateness of such content in the game forum is irrelevant. The fact is this: in any medium where you have people talking to each other, interpersonal problems are going to arise. Even in something as banal as a forum dedicated exclusively to a single video game, you are going to get the complex interpersonal dynamics that exist within society, all of which stem from the fundamental human condition. This includes arguments, animosity, and enemies. It's just going to happen.

That said, if you are demanding proof of the appropriateness of punishments (formerly "aversions", for I am no writer) and negative reinforcement, then all we have to do is look at the game itself. Guild Wars 2 has several forms of negative reinforcement built in. For example, the fact that you have to pay for living world story steps if you did not log in when they were released. This encourages people to log in regularly (and thus, create an "active community") to avoid having to deal with the negative consequences of a pay gate. It's a textbook example of negative reinforcement. Another example is ascended materials. The dusts, ore, and fragments needed to make ascended equipment accrue at a rate faster than you need, and yet material storage is incapable of holding a sufficient amount of these mats. In order to avoid having to deal with cumbersome inventory management, players are encouraged to max out a crafting discipline and spend silver on reagents to make bars, which can be stored easily. That, or buy account upgrades which increase the amount of storage. This is also true with bag space.

Punishments are everywhere as well. For one, you have the warning and infraction system, which is used to punish players by revoking their privileges and access to the game. These punishments are designed to create a maximum amount of aversion, existing both to discourage certain behaviors and also to minimize the presence of those who are not discouraged. Forum punishments can extend directly to in-game punishments. Really, the

the forum is already a place for "aversion training"

. It is enforced by both the moderation and the community itself. There are also problems with breaking in-game ToS. Failure in-game also results in equipment breaking, as well as long weight times for events to reoccur. In designing the Tequatl fight, somebody mentioned that the waypoints were spaced in such a way as to put a time punishment on players who died during the fight.

If you are demanding proof that negative reinforcement and punishments work... well then I question why they're in the game in the first place if you believe such. But I digress: It is sort of a well known fact. Discovered by B.F. Skinner, the infamous man himself. Finding a

source

for this that doesn't just re-state Skinner's discoveries is quite difficult, and would involve me shelling out money to get access to periodicals just to debate someone online. Trust me when I say that it is a fundamental concept in behavioral science.

Company stock lines about moderation aside, this is not an issue about forum vigilantism. It is the real interactions between individuals, taking place on the forums. And maybe it is because I grew up in low-income neighborhoods, but my general stance (that I extend to everyone else) is that you don't get the po'po' involved unless it is a last resort. You shouldn't run to H.R., or the ethics committee, or the associate investigators, or the ministry of peace for every slight offense or microaggression.

As a matter of respect

, I attempt to hash out issues I have with other people, because it is both more effective on the long term, and causes significantly less damage than what the ministry of peace will cause. If I can use my special maturity powers to resolve an interpersonal issue without getting the other person suspended or infracted, then by golly I'm going to do it. The only time I'm going to report somebody is if their offense is particularly egregious, or the issue both cannot be resolved and the option of compromise via mutually ignoring each other is not a viable alternative.

To speak frankly and with sincerity is respect. It may not always be positive, but it is not malicious. I cannot fathom how a forum where people use their adult emotions to resolve issues without incident somehow isn't "good for" the forum.

...and all I'm saying is, feel free to say whatever you like, but understand that you digitally signed an agreement, and if you're call upon to live up to your end of it, don't act like it's someone else's fault.

[ratche.6204]

@Lord Kreegan.8123 said:

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

@Lord Kreegan.8123 said:I make a "spoof post" where I used no curse words to invoke the filter or directed any negative comments at anyone, but typed in "kitten" and -- what should have also been the bald-faced and blatant give-away -- also typed in "puppy", "duckling", "piglet", "lamb", and "calf" as modifiers in sentences, alternating their use.I got an infraction, three whole points...

That post wasn't a spoof -- it reads very much like an attack, directed towards the developers, the company, and others who enjoy the game. You were unremittingly insulting in your comments. You could have said what you wanted to say without calling people "yahoos" and without trotting out the old saw that no one tested the game. Maybe you believe "It was a joke" covers a variety of ills, but the acceptance of your input is directly related to the acceptability of your comments.

It was absolutely a spoof... in a thread specific to commenting on problems in the game. Your thin skin doesn't change reality.

It's been my experience that thin skin is a euphemism for when someone is trying to cover their rudeness. Kinda like when someone tells an unfunny joke and then says "well they just don't have a sense of humor" when no one laughs.

Seems like this topic is spinning round and round with some people saying, it's their forum, their rules, and others saying they are being too harsh. I fall into the first camp. People don't come in my house and do whatever they want, if they tried, they would have to leave. And I'd bet most people on both sides of the discussion would say the same thing. Obviously a business is different from a person's private property but the same concept applies.

[robertthebard.8150]

@"Devilman.1532" said:"What's really important to take away about this is that the right for a private company to censor their forums/speech platforms is in fact protected by their right to free speech. It is exorcising their freedom of speech in action for them to say "You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to say it here, because this kind of speech doesn't represent us and we don't want it tied to our platform.""

This may indeed all be true but they are running a business and if their customers feel they are being treated in a draconian hamfisted manner communication. customer service wise, etc by representatives of said business they are also free to and likely will take their business elsewhere.

They are running a business, and the idea is to accommodate as many customers as possible w/out alienating others. So Joe Player has an issue that the "we'll say whatever we want" crowd has already told 'em to find on Google, does their search, isn't clear and comes here, only to have the "we'll say whatever we want" crowd to further bash him here. Bye bye customer, because the reverse of your statement is also true, if a player believes that they're not controlling the activity on their forums at all, they're going to talk with their wallets too. Here's my biggest issue with that: the "we'll say whatever we want" crowd may not be bringing in any new players, but Joe Player might have a large guild in another game that's looking to move, and I've actually seen that happen, my first Aion Legion moved to Runes of Magic well before Aion went F2P. That was 200 players, that, in my example above, wouldn't have come here. Is the "we'll say whatever we want" crowd making up for that potentially lost income?

[Neural.1824]

@"Leo G.4501" said:

You do realize that the thumbs down feature was doing the exact thing you're saying while also protecting the user from possibly sinking to writing an insulting post while also saving moderation time?

The story from Anet is that the downvote ability was "in question" and they were testing it out and decided to get rid of it because of "user feedback"The other side of the coin is that while some users were upset about the downvote option and were voicing said opinion, Anet also made an official post that people didn't like, which saw "user feedback" of something around 35+ downvotes before the downvote option magically disappeared.

Doesn't matter if the conspiracy theory is true or not, the "optics" weren't the most becoming for the company.

[Sojourner.4621]

@"Devilman.1532" said:"What's really important to take away about this is that the right for a private company to censor their forums/speech platforms is in fact protected by their right to free speech. It is exorcising their freedom of speech in action for them to say "You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to say it here, because this kind of speech doesn't represent us and we don't want it tied to our platform.""

This may indeed all be true but they are running a business and if their customers feel they are being treated in a draconian hamfisted manner communication. customer service wise, etc by representatives of said business they are also free to and likely will take their business elsewhere.

And that is in turn their right. It's amazing how that works, right? See, the individual can exorcise their right to say that the company doesn't represent their needs/desires/opinions by leaving just like the company can exorcise their right to say that those needs/desires/opinions don't represent them by removing the individual's post. Both are protections of free speech.

[Neural.1824]

@Spurnshadow.3678 said:

These forums seem very black and white with little grey.

Forgive the slightly off topic, but I have to chuckle at this comment showing up in a thread that has seen more posts from Gaile than most others. Much as I disagree with her often, she's been very active in attempting to keep this unusual thread in a state such that it may be useful to all parties involved.

[kurfu.5623]

Personally, I am fine with them trying to eliminate toxic behavior on the forums.

Have you ever checked out the WoW forums? The behavior there is horrible.

[Belorn.2659]

I am personally very glad for the moderation on the forum. It is very common if not likely that insults are repaid in kind with the same tone and language. Moderation is what prevents this vicious loop from continuing.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

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.

Just as we don't remove all negative comments (despite that frequent accusation ;) ) we don't remove features without a pretty careful review. In this case, a discussion about the topic involved perhaps as many as 20 people directly involved in the forums or communications. The removal decision was made to address various concerns that outweighed the value or perceived value of the feature.

P.S. You made me smile with the OT comment.

[Blaeys.3102]

As someone who often gets very "passionate" about topics (probably a little too much so for a video game forum :) ) - and who has received at least one warning/post deletions on the forums - I believe that Anet, and Gaile in particular, are very fair in where they draw the line regarding infractions.

I imagine overseeing this kind of thing can easily become a full time job, but the result is a friendly (ish) environment where we can have actual discussions - even animated discussions among large groups of players who disagree strongly with one another. It would likely be much easier if they were a lot stricter, but by striking that balance, it makes this a better feedback tool - both for players and, probably for the devs as well.

That is something I believe sets Anet and GW2 apart regarding this particular game community aspect.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@"Itz Jay.8941" said:It's actually hilarious. I've only been warned once, but it was on a post where someone had replied to me in an arrogant and sarcastic manner, I simply replied and said "you must be fun at parties" next thing I get a warning haha. I just found it hilarious because I've seen devs trying to be funny and being sarcastic, also seen devs say a lot worse than what I did too. At a certain point writing without characteristic words become empty and meaningless, like whats wrong with trying to have a laugh? Why so serious? I get it if your outright rude, but nothing wrong with a bit of friendly banter.

Then you have the PvP forums which no moderator will step foot inside btw, cause if they did there would be no PvP forums left, every PvP player would be banned from the forums and every dev would be banned from the forums too, yep there's some devs in there with some funny senses of humour. Every other post is some toxic whining nonsensical rubbish, half the people can't spell or use the correct grammar, and the rest can only reply with some sarcastic "l2p" sort of comments, it's just too funny.

This is a classic example of the wrong person being warned/infracted. The person pouring fuel on the fire walks free, and is free to do it again to antagonize other people.

I think the sole problem with the moderation is it's inconsistent and too open for interpretation to the point if the moderator at hand takes offense to it (when they shouldn't), a person gets warned. I've had posts removed, then reinstated shortly after when I pointed out their moderation wasn't breaking any forum rules but more-so appeared to have hit a sore spot with the particular moderator at hand for whatever reason.

I don't have a problem with people being moderated for being rude, personally attacking people, and especially those who deliberately antagonize others into posting personal attacks. What I do have a problem with is moderation in regards to negative feedback or criticism . That should NEVER exist in any forum, but it seems to exist around here quite a bit.

[Neural.1824]

@"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.

Just as we don't remove all negative comments (despite that frequent accusation ;) ) we don't remove features without a pretty careful review. In this case, a discussion about the topic involved perhaps as many as 20 people directly involved in the forums or communications. The removal decision was made to address various concerns that outweighed the value or perceived value of the feature.

P.S. You made me smile with the OT comment.

As mature as the EU community is, I find it interesting that they had a problem with the downvote buttons, though the weight of my comment was more about how the timing of the removal just looked terrible (not that you had control over it). Actually, I will post some thoughts in a new thread about that.

And yes, I was there to see the..uh... "reception" of your comment on Reddit after the launch of Heart of Thorns. That was a pretty solid case of people "shooting the messenger". Though I would argue that in your position as the community manager (not sure if that's the official title) it may be something that just comes with the territory unfortunately. I'm pretty sure the 600+ downvotes you received were more intended for Mike. :edit: well.. perhaps not just one individual, but the decision makers in general.

But on the bright side, at least your Reddit user name isn't EACommunityTeam. :D (the Battlefront comment is now at 669k downvotes.).

[IndigoSundown.5419]

On a social level, a lot of people these days belong to/participate in many different groups. Diverse groups are likely to have different standards and mores. The use of an insulting tone or words may be tolerated and expected, or even the norm in some settings. It's natural for people to behave consistently in different settings. However, that can be a problem in an online forum.

In online forums, a person's tone does not come across. There is no group-derived agreement as to what is acceptable. Some forum sponsors set up rules of conduct to fill that lack. The problem is that mutually agreed rules for behavior are easier for people to accept than imposed rules. ANet has done so. Some people may not like the rule-set, but it there for us as a whole, not us as individuals.

There is always room for improvement in any system. I daresay that forum moderation could be improved. For instance, it took me multiple infractions to get the message that I should not refer to someone else's insult even if I was not myself returning the insult. The message that came with the infraction did not spell that out, so I had to figure it out by looking at what I had done in those situations. Would moderation be better if the message articulated exactly what behavior was infracted? Probably. However, that may not be practical.

The following has helped me reduce my infractions.

Communication is a product of the intent of the person attempting to communicate. If Person A insults Person B, A intended to do so. Person A may not be conscious of his/her intent, but the intent is there. People can be unconscious about a lot of things, and intent is often one of them. At some level, though, we know exactly what we're doing. Taking responsibility for my communications means making sure that my message is what I would want it to be when I am conscious of the host's rules.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Oh yes, downvotes and negative comments completely come with the job. Not a big deal, and I try to glean from it anything of value (and sometimes there is something of value) and let the rest go. :)

[Funny, on that Reddit thread, someone felt so bad for all the downvotes (directed at "me" but not me) that they donated Reddit Gold in my name. That wasn't at all necessary, but it was a sweet gesture.]

May I ask that if you're going to post about the downvote option, you please consider not creating a "put it back" poll? I feel that ship has sailed and we're not looking at reinstating it for any or all forums, particularly because I want to respect the team's input and not make a unilateral reversal of a decision that was accepted by everyone on the team. It's up to you how/what you post, but I wanted to share my perspective.

[mercury ranique.2170]

I am one of the most critical persons about the moderation. I had an extremely bad experience with a mod I the first year. The mod called me out in public in a way that was inapropiate. I reacted, fiercily and angerly in private communication, instead of asking me to let it rest till a collegue to verify it, he kept getting under my skin. In the end, I was told, the mod was wrong, but I was banned for the private Communication. I left the forum for many years. I know have been active for a while and have seem lots of improvement. I did have some good and respectfull arguments with Gaile. In real life I design support processes in international and multi-cultural settings. I think that a good moderation system is never perfect. People will be angry and get in conflict and feel all kind emotions, but I also feel that a lot has been improved.So keep on weeding out the bad, but also be eager to improve.

An example. I am a not native English speaker. I think my English is understandable enough, but my vocabular is limited. I did not know the word condescending. I understood, without looking up the meaning, that using it to describe a poster is much worse then describe a specific post. I looked up the meaning and the way I would describe it is a word that is in my vocabular. This word is in my vocabular because I play guildWars 2. But I got infracted for using it (and somehow bypassing the filters, while ai used the faul word). So what is the word I would use for condescending? It is a common word to describe the feces of a male cow. I used it not to describe a person, but a persons post. How is that different from using a word like condescending? So yes. When we talk about differences in culture, background, intelligence, and moderation, a lot can still be learned. But the team is learning and doing 500% better then when you started out!

[Neural.1824]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:May I ask that if you're going to post about the downvote option, you please consider not creating a "put it back" poll? I feel that ship has sailed and we're not looking at reinstating it for any or all forums, particularly because I want to respect the team's input and not make a unilateral reversal of a decision that was accepted by everyone on the team. It's up to you how/what you post, but I wanted to share my perspective.

No danger there from me. Making polls is not my forte, and as you pointed out it's long past in that respect.

Besides, give it a year, and someone completely new who wasn't here for that time in the forum history will start a "should we have a downvote option like reddit" poll, and we'll be back on this page again anyway. You know how that goes. :)

[Joxer.6024]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:You should have seen the awesome tattoos and the way he wielded his gyro --

But it was bugged!! Oops, I went there...sorry.And to quickly comment, I have been banned and I disagreed and it was then explained to me and all good. latest time I actually outright asked for it, got it, and it was over. Emotions/frustrations can do that to a person but the key is moving on in a respectful and, dare I say it...grown-up manner! Its not an easy job by any measure the Mods have so at some point we as peoples (or Charr,Asura, etc.) need to remember that. I have strayed from the path a few times but like I said, emotions.....but some of the stuff I have seen before its gone, yea, we need the system and its working I reckon.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

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.

[lezbefriends.7516]

My main problem with gaming forums and in-game policy is that they don't provide any leniency for players who contribute more. After all, the more one talks, the more likely one is to go against the rules (unintentionally). And actually, the punishments get worse the more often one goes astray. So in other words, they are actually discouraging socializing in an MMO: I can't make any more jokes in map chat, lest I get banned (again).

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

@Mortifera.6138 said:My main problem with gaming forums and in-game rules is that they don't provide leniency for those who contribute more. After all, the more one talks, the more one is likely to say something against the rules (unintentionally). And actually, their punishments get more severe the more often you go astray. So, in other words, they are actually discouraging socializing in an MMO.

Not at all. Those who contribute more are usually quite civil in their discourse, which is why they're allowed to keep contributing. Between the old and new forums, I'm sure I've racked up over 20,000 posts (no, I don't have a life, why do you ask?), and I have had a few infractions more than necessary to have action taken against me.

But the moderating system is set up to handle that. I've gotten multiple infractions, but they were all spaced out and my record kept resetting to 0 points. I have yet to receive any punishment from the moderation team because it is accounting for the occasional mistake in its very design.

However, if I were frequently breaking the rules, I wouldn't still be around to keep contributing.

[lezbefriends.7516]

@Drarnor Kunoram.5180 said:

@Mortifera.6138 said:My main problem with gaming forums and in-game rules is that they don't provide leniency for those who contribute more. After all, the more one talks, the more one is likely to say something against the rules (unintentionally). And actually, their punishments get more severe the more often you go astray. So, in other words, they are actually discouraging socializing in an MMO.

Not at all. Those who contribute more are usually quite civil in their discourse, which is why they're allowed to keep contributing. Between the old and new forums, I'm sure I've racked up over 20,000 posts (no, I don't have a life, why do you ask?), and I have had a few infractions more than necessary to have action taken against me.

But the moderating system is set up to handle that. I've gotten multiple infractions, but they were all spaced out and my record kept resetting to 0 points. I have yet to receive any punishment from the moderation team because it is accounting for the occasional mistake in its very design.

However, if I were frequently breaking the rules, I wouldn't still be around to keep contributing.

I'm not only talking about the GW2 forums, but gaming forums in general, and my experiences with them.

[Randulf.7614]

@Mortifera.6138 said:My main problem with gaming forums and in-game policy is that they don't provide any leniency for players who contribute more. After all, the more one talks, the more likely one is to go against the rules (unintentionally). And actually, the punishments get worse the more often one goes astray. So in other words, they are actually discouraging socializing in an MMO: I can't make any more jokes in map chat, lest I get banned (again).

How much chat you type should never excuse being inappropriate and should never carry any weight of leniency. If anything it should be encouraging a greater sense of learning from the issue

[lezbefriends.7516]

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Mortifera.6138 said:My main problem with gaming forums and in-game policy is that they don't provide any leniency for players who contribute more. After all, the more one talks, the more likely one is to go against the rules (unintentionally). And actually, the punishments get worse the more often one goes astray. So in other words, they are actually discouraging socializing in an MMO: I can't make any more jokes in map chat, lest I get banned (again).

How much chat you type should never excuse being inappropriate and should never carry any weight of leniency. If anything it should be encouraging a greater sense of learning from the issue

um.. no? If I'm talking more, I'm more absorbed into the conversation to think of what higher beings are looming overhead

[Randulf.7614]

@Mortifera.6138 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Mortifera.6138 said:My main problem with gaming forums and in-game policy is that they don't provide any leniency for players who contribute more. After all, the more one talks, the more likely one is to go against the rules (unintentionally). And actually, the punishments get worse the more often one goes astray. So in other words, they are actually discouraging socializing in an MMO: I can't make any more jokes in map chat, lest I get banned (again).

How much chat you type should never excuse being inappropriate and should never carry any weight of leniency. If anything it should be encouraging a greater sense of learning from the issue

um.. no? If I'm talking more, I'm more absorbed into the conversation to think of what higher beings are looming overhead

Still doesn't excuse any inappropriate behaviour tho