New Forum Policy: No Hateful Posts

I'm happy to see the forum policy shifting.

While I can understand people want to express their opinions, I absolutely sympathize with how that feedback can hurt morale (as a developer myself.) There's no reason for anyone to post anything but constructive criticism, particularly when you're not actually charging people to play the game in the first place. You haven't duped them or their wallets - like some other companies that we won't name - and so all the hostility is just plain unfounded. Honestly, some people are just trolls right down to their core and thrive on ruining a good thing.

Here's hoping this will lead to more thoughtful, contributory conversations that help keep the relationship between GGG and it's players strong.

"

Halcion wrote:

I'm happy to see the forum policy shifting.

While I can understand people want to express their opinions, I absolutely sympathize with how that feedback can hurt morale (as a developer myself.) There's no reason for anyone to post anything but constructive criticism, particularly when you're not actually charging people to play the game in the first place. You haven't duped them or their wallets - like some other companies that we won't name - and so all the hostility is just plain unfounded. Honestly, some people are just trolls right down to their core and thrive on ruining a good thing.

Here's hoping this will lead to more thoughtful, contributory conversations that help keep the relationship between GGG and it's players strong.

When people spend their resources on something, they are in practice invested in it. Time is a resource.

Also, something I realized is a systematic reason for why GGG doesn't get as much positive feedback as they could have: they often choose to not be specific about numbers in patches.

For instance the map changes: it will take many many hours before people can get a good idea about how the map changes in latest two patches actually affect them and their progression. A hell lot of the relevant numbers are not disclosed and since the RNG factor is so large, a lot of gameplay time is required to get a good idea of what the balance changes really mean in practice.

If GGG went out and stated "This is how the probability distribution for map drops was before and this is how it is now in the improved version", we could easily report bugs in case there is one (there have been loot drop bugs in the past) and they would have received a full thread of love letters about how GGG rocks.

Analogous would happen if GGG went out and said "Caliga damage has been reduced by X%". Because what happened was that people knew that it was reduced, but didn't know by how much and by the time they get an idea, the change was so old news that they don't bother posting their joyful response anymore.

In this sense, GGG is one of their own worst enemies.

I don't think this represents true "censorship" -- This forum is owned by GGG and they have set up civility rules for the content posted here. They are not "censoring" anything in the way we all fear; they are letting us know that all ideas and expressions are welcome so long as they are constructive.

I know we're not all literature majors, and we are all from different countries, cultures, and generations, but I do not think it unreasonable, nor true "censorship" to remove inappropriate posts from a game forum. Morality, literacy, and sociological differences aside, a person's basic intelligence should be able to differentiate between constructive and malicious intentions.

Basically, they are saying that everyone is invited to post on the forum, so long as everyone respects the forum's rules. It's not like they are saying that you are not allowed to say whatever you want wherever else you want. If you really have to vent and you feel really strongly about the game and you want to rage post without thinking about your words, then you are free to do so, just not in this forum. GGG operates this forum, not all forums.

To complain about this is to severely lack perspective. This is a great game, provided to us for FREE by an independent company and all micro-transactions are ethical and do not provide a gaming advantage to players. We all want this game to be the best it can be, but really, I think the fact that we all play it and care about it at all means it is already pretty awesome.

There's a word for this:

fascism

"

MackBesmirch wrote:

I don't think this represents true "censorship" -- This forum is owned by GGG and they have set up civility rules for the content posted here. They are not "censoring" anything in the way we all fear; they are letting us know that all ideas and expressions are welcome so long as they are constructive.

I know we're not all literature majors, and we are all from different countries, cultures, and generations, but I do not think it unreasonable, nor true "censorship" to remove inappropriate posts from a game forum. Morality, literacy, and sociological differences aside, a person's basic intelligence should be able to differentiate between constructive and malicious intentions.

Basically, they are saying that everyone is invited to post on the forum, so long as everyone respects the forum's rules. It's not like they are saying that you are not allowed to say whatever you want wherever else you want. If you really have to vent and you feel really strongly about the game and you want to rage post without thinking about your words, then you are free to do so, just not in this forum. GGG operates this forum, not all forums.

To complain about this is to severely lack perspective. This is a great game, provided to us for FREE by an independent company and all micro-transactions are ethical and do not provide a gaming advantage to players. We all want this game to be the best it can be, but really, I think the fact that we all play it and care about it at all means it is already pretty awesome.

It is very much censoring. What you describe is that GGG has the right to censor whatever they feel like in their own private forums and it is true that it is their right.

Just like any restaurant has the right to boot any unpleasant customer from their own private restaurant.

"

mazul wrote:

Can a person who has never been given the chance to be do "evil" ever be considered to be "good"? Is a person who does the "right" thing simply because of either habit or because he's been told it is "right" actually being a "good" person?

Semantics. I could argue that evil be defined as knowing something is wrong and yet continuing to do it.

"

mazul wrote:

I strongly believe in that good cannot exist without evil and that a people are able to very much do things that appears to be "correct" for the wrong reasons.

By allowing people to do "bad", you encourage people to truly think about why it is even considered to be bad at all and why the things they consider to be "good" is "good".

What I don't want is a world where people do things just because, without ever reflecting why they do them in the first place. For this reason, people must be allowed to do "wrong" to as large extent possible, and that's why freedom of speech is important to me.

In the context of insults and malice, i find it hard to believe that anyone who has the facilities to type in english on the internet is not aware that unprovoked maliciousness is 'bad' and their 'choice' to do so anyway does in fact negate your opinion that they were denied choice. For they were previously already given the option to think.
Also i think you misunderstand 'allowing'. Ppl are still allowed to post shit, it just gets removed and they get punished. I think you have been to strongly imprinted with the notion of 'freedom of speech', likely the result of patriotic propaganda.
Evil should not be tolerated, it should be destroyed. Now we can discuss the proper definitions of evil, but i think this statement is the true cause of the conflict for many people. Mazul, you should realize that allowing evil will in fact lead to more evil.

"

mazul wrote:

It is not surprising that entities throughout history have used censorship as a tool to control others. The excuses are often similar: "they think wrong", "They do wrong", "they provoke too much", "They incite harmful thoughts", etc, etc. It is so much easier when everything undesired is censored.

Control, influence, and power may not inherently be evil nor good. A well applied tool is a very useful thing. Good may be quantized down into discrete values, but to my knowledge no-one as of yet(nor do i believe its easily possible with the limits of current human language) done so and so we cannot easily compute whether or not the consequences of any action IS good or evil. We currently instead rely on learned patterns of recognition to broadly define good and evil.

"

mazul wrote:

Ignorance is a bliss, and that's why people are so often able to accept that someone else already dictates what they should think and how they should express themselves.

Like Heath Ledger's Joker once said about the zombie-sheep mentality:

"

I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

I very much agree that each individual should reflect and analyze their own consciousness. But that does not negate the benefits of openly stating (and dictating) a higher order of consciousness. A consciousness which is aware of the ramifications of behavior, and not tolerating that which leads to a more negative state.
Dont take this post as me attempting to destruct yours. I was merely adding what i think is relevant information to the conversation.
Even the most grand of masters was a sheep to some extent. Our environment is our reality, and to think beyond it is exceedingly difficult. We are all biased both knowingly and unknowingly by it.

you can still gg in race subforum since qqq never reads them.

Here's my feedback.

Moderate in game more, moderate the forums less. You guys move a thread within 2 seconds of it's creation yet it takes 10+ minutes to get a trade spammer muted if it happens at all. How about a proper distribution of labour for the 97% of players that don't give a shit about the forums?

"

SkyCore wrote:

I very much agree that each individual should reflect and analyze their own consciousness. But that does not negate the benefits of openly stating (and dictating) a higher order of consciousness. A consciousness which is aware of the ramifications of behavior, and not tolerating that which leads to a more negative state.

Precisely how Iran and China justify their censorship and dictatures. They consider their current "consciousness" to be of a higher order in comparison to the one in the West. They are very much aware of the ramifications of Western behaviour and are not tolerating such Western behaviour that leads to a more negative state.
-----------------

What if, there is no a priori "better state"? What if what is a "better state" is subjective and may change? Dictatorship is not needed in a country where the grand majority agrees and will agree with what the dictator thinks is a "better state".


Censorship acts as means to control feelings and ideas; to reduce the rate at which they reach other individuals; there is a fear that the the individuals touched by it will accept them and spread them on their own.

Very happy to hear this. I can remember the first time someone advised me to "go **** yourself" on this forum. It was a surprisingly hurtful experience and one that's led me to avoid returning to threads to check responses after my comments.