Posted by Stahlhagen on November 15, 1999 at 11:55:56:
In Reply to: Some minor details, posted by somebody that isn't high enough as a VIP to remove posts posted by Ponderer(VIP) on November 15, 1999 at 06:14:22:
> 1) Flames get deleted by the first (VIP) that sees them. A flame is defined as a posting which contains no useful information, and only exists to draw attention or say hurtful things about another. > I dislike flames as well, although deleting them the instant you see them generally isn't feasible. A lot of flames have a usefull tidbit somewhere in the middle. Do you delete those as well? It comes down to respect. I work in a scientific discipline. When a scientist gives a seminar, it is normal for audience members to raise their hand and question or criticize the speaker's results. I have little difficulty telling the difference between a questioner who has a problem with the ideas I am presenting, and someone who is just out to make themselves look important, or detract from what I do because they work in a competing field. Of course, I have the advantage of often knowing who the speaker is, or at least hearing the tone of the question, so I have a little more information than you guys often do. My opinion is that if a post is disrespectful and insulting, but has useful information in it, the VIP in question should make a judgement call. There is no hard line, and I don't think there ever can be. As long as someone watches the watchmen, the system can work. > > 2) Constructive criticism is tolerated. You can disagree with a poster, and attack their ideas as long as you do not attack the person. In both of your examples, you attack the person, not the ideas. Shred the ideas often enough (and the forum readers are good at that, especially Sierothe's ideas), and even the stubborn will see that they should slow down until they learn things a little better. In any event, I personally would rather deal with the Sierothes of the world than "elite" flamers you know a lot but just post anger. On a seperate note, it is extra-important that a line is drawn between "inexperienced" and "clueless". As any of the dozens of players who have kicked Stahlhagen around can attest, I am not an expert at CF. I don't think that reflects on my ability to participate in this Forum so long as I remember that fact. I make mistakes, I occasionally ask "obvious" questions, and there are a lot of CF facts that I just don't know. But I don't think I'm clueless, as I think I'm quickly improving. (N.B. to beginners: I got Stahlhagen from level 1 to 29 utterly solo. I died a few extra times, but if you can pull it off, it's a -great- way to learn a class. Groups can often drag you around without teaching you anything.) > > 3) People who use the forum solely to attack others get banned from posting. (Everyone can always read.) > I agree, not enough bannings going down. However, the reason should be cut and dry. Bannable conditions should include malice...flaming somebody in jest shouldn't be a bannable offense. I agree with you here. Intent should be the -most- important deciding factor. Good humor is easy to differentiate from flaming. Bad humor is... well... I guess you have to make judgement calls. =) > >4) People who break the forum rules (player IDs, quest solutions, etc.) get banned from posting. > Agreed, though again is should be cut and dry. Somebody posting "Suchandsuch is the area with the travelling boots" is ok in my opinion, where as "say 'gheiuo' to suchandsuch a mob who is 10 paces north, and 7 east of the entrance" is not. Yep. I think vague hints towards quests actually -help- the game, since it encourages low-to-mid-skill players to explore certain areas. It got me to really search Ysigrath, for example. I won't say why, but I was pleased with the results, if only because Ysigrath has lots of subtle bells and whistles. =) But hand-holding should be discouraged. A sample cut-and-dry rule (you seem to like these) could be "You can reveal the existence of a quest, or what area to start looking in for it, but nothing more detailed." Actually, spreading vague legends is a good IC thing for bards to be doing.... convincing Therans to go out and explore out-of-the-way places, instead of continuing to beat the piss out of the same ten mobs. -Stahlhagen, the Doomed. > > This forum has been a lengthy experiment. It shows great promise as a place of learning and information exchange. Dioxide has built a heck of a web site to support it. However, we can all see that the forum is flawed. It would be nice if there was no need for the aforementioned 1) and 3), but we have a lot of data points that suggest otherwise. Time has shown us if the forum is treated in a laissez-faire manner, people will abuse it. It is shame that it took an event of the magnitude of S.S.'s departure to bring this topic to the forefront, but there it is. > Agreed to an extent. I don't want to be forced into the role of "Forum-Nazi." Many of us VIPs, for one reason or another, only get this shiny flag next to our name. Others can remove posts, check IPs, and other stuff. > > I remain convinced that to let the forum continue along the path is has taken is to await another major incident around forum abuse. I would love to hear from the VIPs, IMMs and other forum readers on this matter. > Consider it done.
> Again I disagree to a point. Some people just simply should not be posting. While it's not necessarily usefull to say "Stop posting you fucknose retard, what the hell were your parents thinking when they didn't use a condom?" it's also not often beneficial to say "Sierothe, please stop posting. Your lack of apostrophes and mindless blatherings are detrimental to my mental state." I'd have to find a happy medium to believe my point got across.