New Forum Policy: No Hateful Posts

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

words OBVIOUSLY have meaning, but in the context of a gory arpg for adults... well, you can read my first post.

Adults should know better than to senselessly attack one another. Just as the code of the game prevents spawn campers, the censorship of insults prevents the forum from degrading into the endless circle of hate... a place unworthy of visiting.
You need to take a step back and look at the big picture. Im guessing that you perceive the reduction of tolerated behavior is bad for you, limiting what you consider freedom. But you instead should focus on the long term effects of such a policy, as it is applied to all equally over a length of time. With any objectivity at all, you should come to the realization that this policy does in fact benefit you and everyone else.(aside from those that have a vested interest in GGG's competition or those that carry a grudge against GGG)

I would argue that if we removed all censorship, people would get far more practice in how to deal people they disagree with, rather than pretending that the disagreement isn't there.

To shield a child is important because a child does not have a enough developed brain both intellectually and emotionally to be able to deal with disagreement. I would wager that most people playing this game are above 18 years of age.

"

mazul wrote:

I would argue that if we removed all censorship, people would get far more practice in how to deal people they disagree with, rather than pretending that the disagreement isn't there.

I would respond that without rules in an online environment, there can be no finality to any argument. It is not at all the same as real life where we are subject to many rules( with very potent punishments) and even the possibility of murder.
Just because adults are older than children, does not mean they are not impressionable. Can you imagine what the repercussions of acting in real life with the lessons learned 'to deal with people they disagree with' online. These are two completely different realities.
I am no stranger to the internet. Time and time again iv seen that arguments come down to persistence. Eventually one combatant will simply leave. And the collateral damage is extreme. When observers come for content or simple socialization, and all they see is message after message of negativity... they leave as well. People are demoralized by total shit. And rather than stick around and deal with it, they simply leave it all behind them.
The anonymity of the internet grants virtual invincibility. And the sadistic abuse this. I would argue that the potential for death is very much a good thing. Just as the potential for silences and bans are very much a good thing... an end to the agony, leaving the peaceful to promote more peace.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

mazul wrote:

I would argue that if we removed all censorship, people would get far more practice in how to deal people they disagree with, rather than pretending that the disagreement isn't there.

I would respond that without rules in an online environment, there can be no finality to any argument. It is not at all the same as real life where we are subject to many rules( with very potent punishments) and even the possibility of murder.
Just because adults are older than children, does not mean they are not impressionable. Can you imagine what the repercussions of acting in real life with the lessons learned 'to deal with people they disagree with' online. These are two completely different realities.
I am no stranger to the internet. Time and time again iv seen that arguments come down to persistence. Eventually one combatant will simply leave. And the collateral damage is extreme. When observers come for content or simple socialization, and all they see is message after message of negativity... they leave as well. People are demoralized by total shit. And rather than stick around and deal with it, they simply leave it all behind them.
The anonymity of the internet grants virtual invincibility. And the sadistic abuse this. I would argue that the potential for death is very much a good thing. Just as the potential for silences and bans are very much a good thing... an end to the agony, leaving the peaceful to promote more peace.

Yet, in forums that grant almost complete absence of censorship such as 4chan and flashback, people do learn to deal with it and those forums are indeed very active.

maybe i'm seeing things through rose-tinted goggles, but when i was a kid playing games online nobody really gave a shit what people said.

when i was younger i don't remember ever seeing hateful posts or "trolling" or any such things. nobody cared what people said.

so what happened? why are people so carebear these days? this is something i can't figure out.

now we have terms like "cyber bullying" and "trolling" that essentially ruin open discussion.

voiced an opinion someone doesn't like? you are a troll.

called someone stupid? you are a bully.

just because a few retards drank bleach and blamed the internet doesn't mean all of us have to suffer the consequences.

"

geniusbean wrote:

maybe i'm seeing things through rose-tinted goggles, but when i was a kid playing games online nobody really gave a shit what people said.

when i was younger i don't remember ever seeing hateful posts or "trolling" or any such things. nobody cared what people said.

so what happened? why are people so carebear these days? this is something i can't figure out.

now we have terms like "cyber bullying" and "trolling" that essentially ruin open discussion.

voiced an opinion someone doesn't like? you are a troll.

called someone stupid? you are a bully.

just because a few retards drank bleach and blamed the internet doesn't mean all of us have to suffer the consequences.

The wild wild west was fun, my man issue with the current internet style,
is not "censorship of words" but "censorship of ideas"

words are stupid tools. we are people... we use stupid tools.
how do we use them? however we like. we can use them to harass
our detractors.... or we can use them to influence our agenda

voice an opinion someone doesn't like? you're being hyperbolic. people say things
people don't like all day long... no one did, nor will stop such discourse.
(Ideally people adapt by restating things more effectively... or they fail
to land their talking points. either way is fine with me.

If someone has a tantrum and screams out harassment and negativity how is
that helpful for anyone? its a big fail in terms of communication...
(the results would not even be a permaban... how many warnings do you
expect?)

There's such a thing as harassment, why would anyone ever encourage that?
and how could anyone construe harassment as discussion? come now.

One must also consider that beyond adults like you and me, there are also
kids around. I didn't have a whole lot of self esteem at age 14.
neither did you. We didn't care about swearing obviously... still don't.

I swear all day long, its fuckin fine. but do I hate and harass all day?
would you guys enjoy having me around if I did? if not do I deserve to be here?

None of this is mine... I'm a guest. Guests should have some manners.
I am not owed access to POE,... I'm a a welcome guest. I'll not hold my host,
nor the party of my host in contempt. It's just proper manners.

It comes down to No pride? No respect. We don't need/want/deserve random harassment
to be a part of our game world. Feel free to talk harshly, but also remember
to let it go. No need to live with someone else's anger in your heart.

The gift that keeps on giving.

no offense :P

ag.

forum mute as personal attribute would be most welcome for haters. i dont like to read stuff from scum. set to muted, never read again.

thx

I don't read General Discussion really often but that is hilarious.

"

If you post a thread called "Path of Exile is shit and GGG are evil" then you will get probated. 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 only result you will receive are hyperbolic cynical and sarcastic threads.

Like: "The warp mechanic ist just awesome"
Topic: "Have you ever played a Game where you just warp to a random spot?
This mechanic is just awesome
Well done"

Does it use hateful words? No.
Will users derail the thread? Certainly.

Sure you can add a rule like "no cynical postings" but then players will report real feedback as cynical posting and the support has more work to do.


You even added privacy settings so players can hide their characters. This way you could easily find users only attempting to provocate. They don't have got a single higher character!
Now they hide behind "This profile is private"

And if you don't want to lose players you should start giving longer mutings to spammers in global chat because 70% of global chat before races is one of the most unconfortable places I have ever seen.

How about a 1-2 week muting for posting an ascii dicks, spamming "raise your dongers", "Hodor", "hit 112255 for instant win" etc. and that's an issue for almost 1 year.

The global channel won't be saved, so I have to read the 20 lines per second spam or instantly type /join global "20 till 255" to escape the spamwave.

I wouldn't even use Global chat but that's the only way to see RIP messages.

i find it interesting that strawman arguments about hateful posts/harassment/etc are still being made (as if all they're all that's censored), when my post was censored last night... which wasn't hateful, wasn't harassing, didn't even contain 'bad language' - and was merely RESPONDING to someone who kept quoting me.

the reason given: antagonization.

the post i was responding to was objectively more antagonizing - but not only did i not complain about it, MINE was the one censored.

why even have these forums when you clearly don't want people to use them, and can't handle it?

back to the deletion - like my censored post said:

...attacked? WITH WORDS?

"

robmafia wrote:

i find it interesting that strawman arguments about hateful posts/harassment/etc are still being made (as if all they're all that's censored), when my post was censored last night... which wasn't hateful, wasn't harassing, didn't even contain 'bad language' - and was merely RESPONDING to someone who kept quoting me.

the reason given: antagonization.

I read the post in question before it was removed. It was full of twisted half truths, bias, and most importantly: insults. Calling someone a 'fanboy' because he does not agree with what you are saying is very much antagonistic. The entirety of the post was oozing with venomous malice. I found your probation to be justified and very...fitting. Now i will be the first to say that this particular case was borderline, you did not use too many crude pejoratives. But the essence of your post was not at all constructive.
As for prior posts: Much of your argument centered on a miscommunication. I apparently mis-perceived a small portion of your ramblings. Perhaps the fault lays in me, perhaps if your original post were more cogent i would not have made that mistake. You then took that single portion of miscommunication and attempted to invalidate everything i said in a very hostile manner, ignoring all points which i made.

"

robmafia wrote:

the post i was responding to was objectively more antagonizing - but not only did i not complain about it, MINE was the one censored.

This statement is simply untrue. 'objectivity'. i dont know how to state this without insulting you. so frankly, i dont think you have any grasp of the meaning of 'objectivity'. precisely where in my posts do you find 'antagonistic behavior'?

"

robmafia wrote:

why even have these forums when you clearly don't want people to use them, and can't handle it?

what an untrue overstatement. yet again you seem to be just brimming with maliciousness.
as for 'clearly dont want people to use them': this is so far outside the realm of tenability i dont think it even deserves a response.
as for 'cant handling it': its not that we cant handle it, its that we dont want it shoved in our face and smeared over everything we see. surely you can see the difference, so yet again i feel as if you care nothing about the truth of the situation... instead you seem merely to want to inject your own poisonous views for whatever reason. i could speculate as to these reasons: but im sure such speculations would be considered antagonistic.

disclaimer: i'm not calling skycore any names. i explain why i used the term "fanboy" in a previous post, since it was specifically addressed.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

i find it interesting that strawman arguments about hateful posts/harassment/etc are still being made (as if all they're all that's censored), when my post was censored last night... which wasn't hateful, wasn't harassing, didn't even contain 'bad language' - and was merely RESPONDING to someone who kept quoting me.

the reason given: antagonization.

I read the post in question before it was removed. It was full of twisted half truths, bias, and most importantly: insults. Calling someone a 'fanboy' because he does not agree with what you are saying is very much antagonistic.

what the... dude, your argument is ALREADY hypocritical.

twisted, half truths? read your first 2 (now 3) responses to my post(s). you literally did such in each of them - and i even pointed them out. i would post x, and you made a strawman response, saying i posted y (for instance, whatever you claimed i think "hardcore" means. lolz... as if i said, implied, or otherwise indicated ANYTHING of the sort). you posting about what you speculate i think is absurd - obviously, only one of us knows what i think. hint: it's me.

further, even now... you assumed the reason why i said "fanboy." and SURPRISE! that's wrong, too! i didn't call you that merely because we disagree, i called that because your arguments are strawman. you were quoting me, while making retorts to things i never said. you have a clear bias. you were vigorously arguing in favor of censorship. you followed me around, quoting everything - while it wasn't even about you.

bias - are you serious?! that's exactly MY point! your posts are way more biased than mine. they don't even make sense. you don't argue the issue at hand, you argue stuff that i never said. hence, "attacks? ...with WORDS?!" how does one attack another, with only words? also, when did i say anything about attacks? i didn't. YOU did.

insults? what insults? you mention ONE perceived insult - which is hardly plural. and it's a synonym of bias, THE SAME THING YOU ACCUSED ME OF. so if fanboy is an insult, how is biased not an insult? they're SYNONYMS. "venomous malice?" what the...? what are you talking about?

for the record, here's the definition of the term in question, from urbandictionary

"

urbandictionary wrote:

"A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic: the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces."

your posts have been passionate. vigorous, even. social grace... well, not so much. as evident by:

"

SkyCore wrote:

I found your probation to be justified and very...fitting. Now i will be the first to say that this particular case was borderline, you did not use too many crude pejoratives.

wait, was it justified and fitting... or was it only borderline?!

but this is proving my point - the censorship doesn't appear to be objective, doesn't appear to be evenly distributed, and is biased toward criticism - constructive or not.


you LITERALLY responded to every one of my posts in this thread - the first and last weren't even directed to you. you're rambling about how it's crazy for me to say that GGG doesn't seem to want us to use the forum - while you think i'm talking about YOU. i wasn't. i didn't. you continue to make unfounded, baseless assumptions... and run with them. you've literally done it in each response. and quite frankly, a position of censorship DOES indicate that they don't want us to use the forums. censorship doesn't promote creativity, positivity, or usage - it has been shown to stifle such.

"

SkyCore wrote:

This statement is simply untrue. 'objectivity'. i dont know how to state this without insulting you. so frankly, i dont think you have any grasp of the meaning of 'objectivity'. precisely where in my posts do you find 'antagonistic behavior'?

since you want to know...

"

SkyCore wrote:

Adults should know better than to senselessly attack one another.

- italics, indicating that i'm not an adult... and an implied accusation of senseless attack.

"

SkyCore wrote:

If this game were really 'hardcore' as you seem to wish, i should be able to kill you as soon as i see you.

- yeah, i got nuthin. i have no idea how this was supposed to make sense/be relevant. but you should be able to kill me on sight! what?

"

SkyCore wrote:

Superficially you make a decent argument. But as you examine things closer you will see just how myopic your view is.

do you know what myopic means? it's pretty similar to the word you found offensive. it starts with fan.

again - my first and last post weren't even to you. i posted about the situation/ggg, you followed me since. you accused me of making insultS - and then fail to support your accusation (in 2 ways, as mentioned above). i fail to see how you writing lengthy posts about/to me, repeatedly, while full of strawman fallacies and accusations, is less antagonistic. objectively.

if i was guilty of antagonizing (i don't think i was, but whatever), how do you think you aren't/weren't?

"

SkyCore wrote:

what an untrue overstatement. yet again you seem to be just brimming with maliciousness.

wtf? can you just once... read my post and take it for what it is/says, instead of inserting your own crap into it? you've been practically stalking in this thread, but you call me malicious? name ONE thing done in malice. you won't. because you can't. you continually assign emotion and now motive into objective posts that made no mention of either. again, you're making an unfounded assumption... and then running with it.


edit:

"

Much of your argument centered on a miscommunication. I apparently mis-perceived a small portion of your ramblings. Perhaps the fault lays in me, perhaps if your original post were more cogent i would not have made that mistake. You then took that single portion of miscommunication and attempted to invalidate everything i said in a very hostile manner, ignoring all points which i made.

wait, wait, wait... let me get this straight - you're claiming it's MY fault that you jumped to bizarro conclusions/misinterpreted my posts?

wow.

this is exactly my point. you apparently can't be wrong, in your eyes. even when you're wrong, it's not your fault - it's the posts. for... get this, being concise and written properly.

and yes, it DID invalidate your argument. YOUR PREMISE WAS WRONG. why do you think that an argument based on falsehood would have merit? the premise being incorrect rendered everything based on said premise to be moot.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/premise



as for "small portion" and "single portion of miscommunication" - LOLWUT? it wasn't a small portion, it was the whole thing! and single? you did it in EVERY response! including the above! you think that it was just ONE time, and only a minor issue? in EACH post, your premises weren't correct.

hostile manner? what in the hell are you talking about? you seriously stalk the critics in this thread, strawman them, make ridiculous accusations, insert all kinds of bizarre emotion/motive/etc into others' posts where they did not exist... and you apparently think that RESPONDING to your fallacies in a logical manner is hostile. wow.

and just curious, are you jake_ggg? the timing of posts/censoring, content, and etc make it seem possible. perhaps plausible. it would explain why you seem to think that posts directed toward ggg are directed to you, personally. and that you saw the post that was quickly censored... but you didn't reply to it, like you did EVERY other time...