Code of Conduct Changes - Do better at least for optics

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I completely disagree. The thrill of trying to push the new boundaries will wear off or the person doing so will be fucked off forcibly. EVERYONE I've clashed with here I've known from before things went to shit. We got along just fine. We might be simply reinforcing an illusion of civility with this change but that's all we need here.

I think you may underestimate some people's dedication to trolling and just being generally awful whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. Many of them don't even do it for the thrills or attention or even actually believe half of the garbage the spread around. They do it just because they can.

Global chat on a busy day is just a revolving door of that kind of behavior. An addition to the Code of Conduct isn't going to prevent it. There's nothing stopping the people who do it from doing it. Unless they implement some chat filters (which works so well vs the spambots...), it will still just be business as usual there.

And that is where players and moderators alike see that kind of behavior long, long before some thread about Trump, gun control, socialism, etc making the rounds in the Off Topic section of the forums.

That illusion of civility gets shattered long before anyone makes their way here.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I completely disagree. The thrill of trying to push the new boundaries will wear off or the person doing so will be fucked off forcibly. EVERYONE I've clashed with here I've known from before things went to shit. We got along just fine. We might be simply reinforcing an illusion of civility with this change but that's all we need here.

Is the shit your referring to called "[Removed by Support]"?

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : guess we can't pin point the bad actor that polluted the old OT with wretched thoughts.
Sanctioned by our ruler on numerous occasions when it benefited him.

Disappointing. I enjoyed "that" thread as a venue for vigorous political discussion from both sides (amid some copious brain vomit, to borrow an apt phrase), as opposed to a simple echo chamber. I guess it's back to Disqus, since I wouldn't set foot in Reddit for a pile of Exalts. ='[.]'=

"

Boem wrote:

Is the shit your referring to called "[Removed by Support]"?

Peace,

-Boem-

I have to admit. I've seen more moderators online, in the last 24 hours, than I have in the last 2 years.

Where are they all coming from xd.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Disappointing. I enjoyed "that" thread as a venue for vigorous political discussion from both sides (amid some copious brain vomit, to borrow an apt phrase), as opposed to a simple echo chamber. I guess it's back to Disqus, since I wouldn't set foot in Reddit for a pile of Exalts. ='[.]'=

Hey! That's my phrase....no stealin'! :D

But be careful using it at least. Apparently, if you describe someone's comment that way you are making a personal attack.

"

aggromagnet wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Disappointing. I enjoyed "that" thread as a venue for vigorous political discussion from both sides (amid some copious brain vomit, to borrow an apt phrase), as opposed to a simple echo chamber. I guess it's back to Disqus, since I wouldn't set foot in Reddit for a pile of Exalts. ='[.]'=

Hey! That's my phrase....no stealin'! :D

It was apt, so I borrowed it. Should've slapped a price tag on it if you wanted to get paid. =^[.]~=

ETA: If someone wants to complain that I've tarred them with the "brain vomit" brush, that's them claiming it. I named no names. =^[.]^=

Charan can you use your influence to push the renaming of "off-topic" to "certain topics"?

Or just remove the off-topic section in it's entirety.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : i can't be the only one who thinks it's facetious that a partition of the forums called "off-topic" falls under the same rulings as parts that are specified around the game and business GGG is trying to push both in-game(global chats) and on the forums.

Meh, went to sleep and this thread proceeded as expected.

Unneccessary steps taken to try and solve a problem that didn't exist to begin with. Most likely if a post was vile or abusive, it fell under the orginal code of conduct, and could be moderated as such. Off topic having posts not related to Path of Exile is literally the entire point. (Just remove it if this is the stance)

To expand on this, essentially allowing deterministic evaluations of thoughts and opinions is equal parts exhausting as it is troubling.

You could make a case that a tremendous number of threads and posts could be moderated with the note that the post was considered inflammatory. (Politics & Religion aside)

So who is the big winner here? The mental health of GGG employees that were hired to moderate, and then are stressed to moderate? (Is this statement inflammatory?)

And the notion that people wont participate or post on a forum becuase of opinions or discussion in a different thread is virtue signaling of the worst kind and is nowhere based in fact. How would you even know if someone wasn't participating or left the site, as opposed to lurking, or not even looking at that thread or forum section. That is 100% a false statement from GGG.

This is an incredibly poor decision, based solely on the fact that someone or a number of someone's at GGG are far too sensitive. (Dont even make me bring up the 1000 hours debacle)

Tbh I would actually feel better and probably have empathy if we were told this was pushed down from Tencent. But to tell us that support had a meeting, and the outcome was to moderate to a standard of 'inflammatory' is head scratching. I would imagine this would be more stressful, unless they are just going to start moderating without notification or providing reasoning (other than this post violates the code of conduct)

Anyways it's clear that it doesn't matter what we think. And when we do have opinions or thoughts we have to quite mindful on how those are presented so that sensibilities are not offended.

"

erdelyii wrote:

"

Another key factor we discussed at length regarding this change is the effect these kinds of topics have on our staff. Forum and game moderation is no easy task and while many players do abide by our Code of Conduct, there are also many players that do not. There are a significant number of really horrible chat and forum postings our team deals with on a daily basis. We hope to significantly reduce the strain on our staff for the benefit of their mental well-being.

Quite sure it will help moderators cope easily with the remaining sludge of sickening homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny, all far lesser evils than the topics of religion and politics, eh?

Sure, removing the obvious and easy makes sense, I've long been surprised the Trump thread is even a thing for how much trouble it causes. Forgive my wry laugh that targeting religion and politics isn't such an assault on the core Gamer Dude supporter base culture, either.

Someone make a first they came for the Trumpsters, then they came for ... and then they came for the PC Master Race... macro?

^ Test.

Will be good to see harder moderation on some of the religious bigotry in chat.

Still, it's not so much what you say, it's how you say it.

Overall, blanket banning of two vital topics - yes, even on a gaming forum - is against my values so fundamentally I'm not sure about how it'll affect me using Off Topic. No loss in the scheme of things, and certainly not cause for calling the waambulance. Guess we'll see how it all pans out.

Not bad timing though, this, interesting and apt, even.

This isn't a bad post. Among other things, the idea that political and religious discussions are "gateway topics" and that cutting them will "significantly reduce the strain on bour staff for the benefit of their mental well-being" is a bad joke. It's like trying to cut down on crime by chasing the poor people out of your city — it might seem to work, but mostly because you're underestimating splash damage to the community and per capita won't change that much.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

GGG-OT is not social media

False. It's not in the major leagues, obviously, but if you're an itty bitty social media platform, you're a social media platform.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

We’ve seen the worse natures of some people who, otherwise, are or were good company

If somebody was good company, I don't believe they suddenly lose that quality merely as a result of unmasking a set of political beliefs. Perhaps they are no longer willing to be good company to the people who have so been unmasked, as if pulling some platonic version of an Alyssa Milano, but I don't believe that striking makes one worse at their jobs nor that my former friends on the other side of these debates have lost their mojo. I guess I've lost their mojo, and that's unfortunate, but it's a sad fact of life that sometimes coming out as who you are isn't met with tolerance.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

My only interest in “that” thread was for the discussion of the political philosophical meta, but opportunity for that has long since been dead, at least for me, being driven nearly paralyzed by my inarticulateness and the eager willingness of others to so quickly “other” another.

This, after saying some have revealed themselves to be monsters.

"

Boem wrote:

[Removed by Support]

QFT

"

Boem wrote:

[Removed by Support]

I was going to say something similar, but was debating whether it was too inflammatory, and didnt want to risk the rest of my post, just to poke the bear with a dose of reality.