New Forum Policy: No Hateful Posts

"

Poutsos wrote:

This brings the fundamental quetion:Is it worth to sacrifice some freedoms,for the "greater good",or not?
Noam Chomsky has not a real answer to that,leave alone myself :P

I think broadly classifying specific actions as intolerable is largely a backwards convoluted approach towards advancing towards a purpose(more on this later). Law, as has been traditionally mandated across mankind's history, has mostly been about 'ruling the populace'. It has very little to do with 'the greater good', that is merely how authority attempts to sell the law.
Although the 'greater good' aspect is not entirely irrelevant. I expect a large portion of laws are made with this aspect in mind. If nothing else than to obfuscate and give the authorities some artificial moral high high ground. Although im not so cynical as to believe every law with good intentions truly is so sinister.
As you examine law closely i think you will find that in any given situation, there will be exceptions where breaking the law may be better for 'the greater good'. So even if we have a 'well intentioned law', we cannot always rely on it to guide us towards the 'greater good'.
Earlier i mentioned that laws were backward. What i mean by that is that they are very narrowly attempt to limit available actions of its populace. And in doing so try to guide the citizen to travel in paths which aid towards 'the greater good'. But its backwards as instead they would be much more effective if they just clearly elaborated on 'the greater good' and how each citizen is expected to help further that purpose. Its like with laws, blinders are placed on us, limiting what we can see and do. And without the blinders we could conceivably have more information to make better decisions which are more closely resemble the aims of the authorities 'greater good'.
But then there is a curve ball. In the history of mankind has anyone ever succinctly and completely described 'the greater good'? The answer is of course no. And the premise that it is even possible is flawed. Flawed because human language itself is inherently flawed; full of contradictions, full of circular logic, and irrational.
Does that mean a 'greater good' doesnt exist? Perhaps.
Another factor of 'the greater good' is time. If you have some mathematical equation to determine it, time would have to be among its most important variables. So how far ahead should we look? a day? a century? a billion years? The closer you limit the greater good to the immediate present the less and less 'the greater good as a concept' becomes. And as you approach infinity, the individual human life's value becomes minuscule and the propagation (or limitation) of ideas become much more important in relation.

I feel as if i should add that i see each society as a single organism. And in that context there are very positive and negative actions which are performed by individuals. The actions are determined by the individuals own morality and percepts. I do believe that control and power should be applied to prevent negative actions which would damage either the whole or an innocent individual. The most effective way would be through teaching of harmony and cooperation, and the negative portrayal of competition. Followed by the elimination of those who dont accept it.

"

SkyCore wrote:

I feel as if i should add that i see each society as a single organism. And in that context there are very positive and negative actions which are performed by individuals. The actions are determined by the individuals own morality and percepts. I do believe that control and power should be applied to prevent negative actions which would damage either the whole or an innocent individual. The most effective way would be through teaching of harmony and cooperation, and the negative portrayal of competition. Followed by the elimination of those who dont accept it[.

About the first paragraph of course u are right.Every ruler of every society had it's own version of the greater good,which could be sincere in their minds,or just means to succed other purposes,which usually was the case.
Now i see that you have your own version of the greater good.If you don't like competition,that means u can't like capitalism,since competion is a major aspect of it.On the other hand it is very hard to establish a socialist society,without being somewhat suppresive,even beyond the elimination of those who don't accept it.Usually u have to limit free speech as well at times.You can see at Fidel in Cuba.Even the american diplomat(Wayne Smith),was conviced that whatever Castro ever did was because he beleived it was for the good of his ppl(greater good).However if this reflects the real situation or not is something very hard to determine.So maybe as u said there is no greater good :P.PS since i am not a native english speaker,it is kinda hard for me to talk political

No problem with the devs censoring the type of mindless hate that is mentioned in the OP. However, as is always the issue with censorship, the practice is different than the theory; enforcement is inconsistent at best, and at times puzzling. It is too subjective to be anything other than tyrannical in its implementation.

Goodbye forums.

"

tackle70 wrote:

No problem with the devs censoring the type of mindless hate that is mentioned in the OP. However, as is always the issue with censorship, the practice is different than the theory; enforcement is inconsistent at best, and at times puzzling. It is too subjective to be anything other than tyrannical in its implementation.

Goodbye forums.

Why is some hate ok and other hate not ok? I think though-out hate is far worse than "mindless" hate because it is not just emotion it is intellect as well behind the hate.

"

mazul wrote:

"

tackle70 wrote:

No problem with the devs censoring the type of mindless hate that is mentioned in the OP. However, as is always the issue with censorship, the practice is different than the theory; enforcement is inconsistent at best, and at times puzzling. It is too subjective to be anything other than tyrannical in its implementation.

Goodbye forums.

Why is some hate ok and other hate not ok? I think though-out hate is far worse than "mindless" hate because it is not just emotion it is intellect as well behind the hate.

Im of the opposite position in most cases. Stupidity is often much more dangerous because of the inability to learn from mistakes. Ignorance of the intelligent can be easily remedied on the other hand.

"

Nightmare90 wrote:

This announcement was just all about blowing leafs, I guess.

If I was a developer and would see General Discussion, I would turn 360° and leave.

This is the Best. Post. Ever.

ROFL hahahah

LOOOOL, did anyone else see the whole "(Fever)" post in this thread just get instantly deleted without any "mod edit" comment XD?

For the record: the deleted post existed between this post and the post from DNAngel right above me.

This is a very disappointing turn for PoE. The other day I was muted at the beginning of a race for jokingly telling someone I hoped they died to hillock.

What does "hateful" even mean? I think it is important that you define the word specifically in the relevant context GGG.

"Hateful" is an extremely subjective thing. What the moderator thought was hateful on my behalf, was obviously actually playful, and I think distinctions like that are easily lost from person to person.

If a person thinks that one build or class is too powerful, and suggests "nerfs" be made to it; is that hateful? I have a feeling some of the people who play that class would find it hateful.

Censorship is a despicable practice, and every time I am muted or my posts are deleted it makes me feel very hateful indeed, where I felt no hate before.

"

If you post in a thread about a new skill saying "in before you nerf this too", don't expect the post to stick around.

The above I find particularly illustrative of my point. Is "in before you nerf this too" really a HATEFUL statement? Are you sure "hatred" is the right emotional backdrop for someone who is making a comment like that? I do not at all. Very slippery slope indeed.

You should just be honest and say you will delete any comments that you don't like the sound of at the time. "Hate" has nothing to do with it.

Crosspost:

"

Michael_GGG wrote:

[You're] welcome to give us feedback on how we can do our jobs better because the common interest I'm sure most of us share is that we want the forum to be a better place to talk about Path of Exile.

Okay. I think the "No Hateful Posts" policy is a step in the right direction, but suffers from not being clear enough.

Hate is a very tricky emotion. There are things about the game which I hate, and my sharing that hatred for a virtual object is valid feedback. One of the primary purposes of reading player feedback is precisely to figure out what elements of the game they hate (and, if possible, why). Therefore, hatred — or any other feeling — is not the key determinant.

What you're really looking out for is a troublesome communication style. In particular, by "No Hateful Posts" what you really mean is "No Aggressive Posts." After all, all I have to do is copy and paste some of the worse behavior from that list to get the things you're really trying to prevent:
- try to dominate others
- use humiliation to control others
- criticize, blame, or attack others*
- act threateningly and rudely

* In this case you may wish to make it clear you're talking about people, rather than concepts.

Clarifying some of the terminology and establishing that you're talking about a style of communication rather than a feeling, I believe, would help a lot in making it clear what you're trying to enforce.