Support.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Spoiler

"

unsane wrote:

Troll thread gets 3 GGG responses. Le sigh.

I do my best to assume people aren't trolling, and respond to them as such. Sometimes you get pleasantly surprised because an initial post that seems trolly was actually just the result of poor wording or lack of language skills, and something good can come from it - useful discussion or the poster can learn about something. And in the other case, being reasonable about things to an unreasonable person costs me at most a few minutes of typing.
The good case has occurred more often than I'd expected (if less often than I'd like), and enough to convince me that for the most part it's worth continuing this way.

A point for consideration: Inex, do you believe that there's any room at all in the system of responding to posters breaking the rules for support to merely warn a player that an action they've taken is against the rules?

Because I definitely do. I think someone could genuinely not know the rules (in an ideal world, of course, everyone would read the rules before posting, but I'm not naive enough to believe that'll happen), and could do something which, though against the rules, isn't serious enough to warrant any action more than a warning that it's against the rules and they should thus refrain from doing it in future. I like that our system can be that lenient when appropriate.

But under your system where no previous actions can be taken into account, and repeated actions must receive the same punishment every time, warnings can't exist. Because the basic nature of a warning is such that it must be escalated on the next offence.
Saying "This is against the rules, so please don't do it again or we'll have to do X" is a warning.
Saying "This is against the rules, so please don't do it again or we'll send you this exact message again" is not a warning by any reasonable working definition.

And the warning doesn't work as a warning unless it actually is followed up with X the next time that rule is broken (or at least, while it might work on that particular user, not following up warnings as policy means users as a whole will learn warnings aren't followed up on, which removes the point).

To put it in another context, I have no problems with a policeman being able to pull someone over for speeding, point out how fast they were going over the limit, and then let them off with a warning not to do it again.
I do have a problem with the kind of person who, on being given such a warning, speeds past the same cop 10 minutes later and when presented with a fine says "WTF is this bullshit, last time I did the same thing I just got a warning, how can you justify giving me a fine now just because it's a second time?"

EDIT: I'd also just like to remind people - just in case, I'm not saying this has been a problem so far - to keep it as general as possible in here. While I think there's some merit in discussing broadly why certain methods of moderation could or could not be useful and their consequences, specific discussion of how Support handles/handled a particular case or set of cases isn't allowed on the forums for good reason. I'd prefer not to see this thread reach a point where it's considered to cross the line, and I respect that I'm not the one who gets to draw that line, and will stand by any support member's decision should they believe this thread has crossed it. So lets try to keep as far from the line as we can while we continue to discuss this.

"

Saying "This is against the rules, so please don't do it again or we'll send you this exact message again" is not a warning by any reasonable working definition.

"

While I think there's some merit in discussing broadly why certain methods of moderation could or could not be useful and their consequences, specific discussion of how Support handles/handled a particular case or set of cases isn't allowed on the forums for good reason.

"

Boatsniper wrote:

I understand what you are trying to say and where you are coming from. I've been in a similar situation.

Determining administrative action based upon previous infractions, no matter how trivial, just doesn't work well at all.

Take this hypothetical example:

-Two users break the same forum rule.
-User A has been around for 2 years with three minor infractions on their account out of 3,000 total posts.
-User B has been around for 2 months with no infractions out of 30 posts on their account.

Who should receive the harsher punishment?

Answer:

Spoiler

Neither.

The longer a user remains on a forum, the more infractions they are likely to accumulate over time. How can you justify a harsher punishment for User A when they have contributed so much already? How can you justify a harsher punishment for User B when they clearly are not accustomed to a new rule- set?

"

Isbox1 wrote:

BUMP for good thread.


I am currently living what I feel is an incredibly harassing experience. Without going in to ALL of the details (against forum rules) let's just say that not only did I coin a phrase, I was using that phrase for months and months - only to wake up to a probation. My last probation has been several months ago, and by all truth: I have been following the rules of the forums to the best of my ability - I never rail off on anyone, and I have even been doing my best to post positively. I've tried to change my attitude.

The main issue I have is that I've always spoken my mind - often the most unpopular opinions about game design and philosophy. I feel very strongly about certain things - and that not only pissed off GGG, but also I've gotten into very heated discussions - which in turn also pissed off GGG.

I've been placed on forum "hit list" and I am monitored likely every 48 hours. I can picture it even - "Guys - someone check on Isbox1's post history." - so I know it's happening, and therefore I do my ultra best to follow the rules.

What happens is that other posters clearly break forum guidelines... posting flames my way - antagonizing - posting jerk comments up and down my threads - and even if I report them it's like my report button should just be greyed out. I feel incredibly ignored. I've even sent personal notes to several GGG mods on occasion questioning certain really obvious ones. (I love that time 2 months ago someone called me a F'n Idiot clear as day - I reported it - and the post gets an edit. You watch how many months probation I would get if I call someone ANY name even with no explicit in front of it.)

It's like they make these rules as a trip wire for their "hit list" people to fall on and then probate - rather than using them to encourage a healthy community. They allow others to nip and bite at my heels and then protect those same antagonistic, flaming posters by only editing their posts. IF I react I get probation... so I have to live with it and let them behave that way towards me. The rules are not there to defend me - they are there to serve to punish me when I finally break down and make a reactionary post. Again: it doesn't matter how often I report someone for a CLEAR violation of the rules - only to have their post 48 hours later edited out AFTER THE FACT and NEVER suffer probation. So really: what's even the point?

Let me be very clear here too: I don't want someone to suffer probation. I want to be able to defend myself - or be defended by the moderators. I want the rules to actually matter and be the same, equally to everyone involved. It's not a game to me. This isn't fun maneuvering through a mine field every time I post - carefully watching my tone, and watching what I say in the face of someone calling me names, and antagonizing me. Nothing I would want more than to react in kind... but I'm not allowed to.

It's really a massive double standard. The only thing this last probation taught me was: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I am going to be extremely vocal - WITHIN THE RULES - about how GGG forum moderation is currently really broken.

"

thefredz wrote:

sorry, I didn't read all of your post but here is my view of your situation.

Imo that hitlist feeling you are getting is most likely due to the new report feature than to GGG having an actual hit list.

as you said you got in many heated disscussions in the past and most likely now have many "haters" that just go thought all of your post history and hit that report button at any given the chance in the hope of getting you probated.

Now if every time a GGG support check the report list and see tons of your posts they probably feel obligated to take actions since so many people reported you.

so yeah i might be wrong but I feel that It's more because you aggravated a number of people, who now mass report you and the way support deal with repeated offences than GGG having an actual hitlist.