Posted by Graatch A.K.A. Scaurus the Wandering Wunderkind(VIP) on November 15, 1999 at 16:11:30:
In Reply to: Re: My thoughts on your questions. posted by Ponderer(VIP) on November 15, 1999 at 12:26:09:
You didn't say whether the flames of that bard who wrote the travel logs -- me -- were deserved or not. I think not, obviously, since they were in game and totally ic. Anyway, as to the bulk of this thread, a few things. While I may not check the forums as much as Ponderer, I've been deleting threads and posts for a while now, and I have little tolerance for flames or posts that break the rules. Which brings me to your next topic, specific rules. There are rules here. It says so on the forum itself, right at the top. Anything quest related is a no-no, whether it is easy to learn in game or not. That's just the way it is. As for the non-written rules, I think they are pretty clear, and in fact it's not really a question of determining what the rules are, as it is the obvious and deliberate decision on the part of many to ignore them, to break them. Simply put, to be assholes on purpose. People know when they are flaming. When they are being insulting. When they are drawing attention to themselves for no better reason than to simply do it and cause a ruckus, to hurt others. I don't for one second believe that the people here are truly ignorant of what they are doing. No, it is a product of the internet. There are no real consequences to your actions when everything is over the computer. Don't even dream that these same people would ever talk to someone the way they post here. They are in essence annonymous here, and so they can be the dirty little asshole they are inside that they can't in their daily real life. I agree with you that more people should be banned, either from posting or from coming here at all. That may sound harsh, but in the end I believe that some people just won't ever change from being the deliberate instigator that they have proven themselves to be. And what's more, even if sometimes they do offer relatively useful posts, I'd be willing to sacrifice those to get rid of the much more frequent flames/useless posts. That's because I believe that the rest of the forum community, once rid of those I've described, would produce the same if not better content, and no lack of information would ensue. Only Dioxide can ban someone. But there are more than a few of us who can delete threads. Why some cannot is a matter for the VIPs, and I wont air dirty laundry here. I fully agree -- and am a bit amused since I have written basicly the same thing as montolio twice in the past year -- with the concept of resepct, and 'if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.' Unfortunately, lots of people are just taking advantage of not having anything holding them back, and so they don't. Lastly, the concept of 'clueless flamers' as opposed to 'elite flamers' seems rediculous to me. A flame is a flame is a flame. I don't care if it is someone who was born yesterday saying it, or nepenthe. If the post has nothing more than "you're wrong and you're an idiot for saying what you said", it's a flame and should and hopefully will be deleted. The reason nepenthe's (and I use him solely as an example because you used him -- filthy whore :P) posts have not generally been deleted is that his posts are not simply "you're wrong and an idiot for saying so." His posts say you are wrong, but generally give at least a vague reason why, and a place to find out where you went wrong. That is called "constructive criticism." I'm sure some of you are going to start yelling at me. Be sure your posts will be deleted. *snicker* > > 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. > Nine times out of ten somebody's hurt feelings or discomfort is as a result of sarcasm that wasn't picked up. The problem with a written forum is just that...sarcasm doesn't come across well in print. > As a "veteran" of CF forums I can tell you that tactfully telling somebody they haven't a clue as to what they're speaking doesn't solve anything. Flaming them sometimes does. I, for example, will at least stop continuing a line of thought when I get flash-fried like a buffalo wing. What happens is you say "You don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from going anything further" is that the person replies "On the contrary, I had this happen to me yesterday so I've got experience" and then you get into a long discussion that does nothing but waste bandwidth. You'll have to really work to convince me that flames aren't beneficial in moderation. > > 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. > I can name several that haven't gotten the hint yet. I also think there's a difference between "elite flamers" and flamers in general. I would consider Nepenthe an elite flamer. He has a fantastic ability of making you feel stupid while not necessarily stooping to the level of calling your mom a whore. He can get away with it though as he obviously knows what he's talking about. There are other "elite flamers" that if I were to name them I would promptly get flamed for defending them so I'll save myself the burns. I don't have a problem with "elite flamers" so much as I have a problem with somebody of questionable intelligence telling somebody else that they should be shot. > > 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. > The initial spirit of this forum was to help the inexperienced. If you were here to witness the inception of the forum you would've seen quest answers and so forth readily handed out. With the death of Glimo's this forum turned into a "catch-all" and the friendliness was lost. I don't have a problem with questions being asked, I'll usually answer them even if they're on a questionable topic. This is mainly because I believe in sticking with the original concept. Others, the majority of the VIPs, are quick to criticize me for my loose tongue. I tend to give any aid asked for to the inexperienced, while flaming the hell out of the utterly clueless. Clueless to me are those people that refuse to put forth any effort, flame the imms when they reach their frustration threshold because they're being left behind, or they might claim that something is fact when it couldn't be further from it. I usually reserve my flames for them, or the people with big egos. > > (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.) > I agree wholeheartedly, I rank all of my new chars to at least 20th alone, even if I know everything there is to know about the class. This is mainly because I can't stand stupid people who don't roleplay, are completely clueless, and so forth. I don't have a problem with taking people by the hand here on the forum to an extent, but I surely don't want to teach people how to use kick in the game. Rank to 20 solo with deaf on, that's my M.O. > > 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. =) > Judgement calls are a dangerous thing. Graatch and I would probably be involved in fisticuffs if were both equally allowed to make judgement calls, hence my desire for everything to be cut and dry. > > 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. > There was a bard once that made travelogues of sorts, he got flamed like a held duergar fighting a druid on a particularly sunny day. > Ponderer