New Forum Policy: No Hateful Posts

my 2p worth.

For my part I think the entire GGG team have done fantastic things with this game. Yes there have been minor cock ups, yes there were some balancing issues that were dealt with, yes there is d'synch / lag that still needs tweeking if possible. On the whole though people tend to focus on the little things and forget to look at the big picture.

Big picture being a small team of amazingly dedicated friends who dared to put themselves in the race with 'the big guns' and won.

In doing that they created a platform for millions to play and enjoy their leisure time and for some time that would otherwise have been spent in forced idleness.

My personal experiences with the Dev teams have been nothing if not swiftly dealt with problems and a hell of a lot more help then I ever received in any other game when I had need to contact tech support.

People would never look at a meal cooked by their mother and say 'was is this shit your trying to feed me'. They would maybe say...a tad salty / cold / spicy etc. You would never deliberately hurt or attack but would simply point out that there was an issue and maybe the recipe needs tweaking....same applies

Constructive feedback is always going to involve a slight negative, but its all in the wording. So many people seem to think that a direct attack will get their viewpoint seen above others, while its actually the well constructed helpful feedback that is going to make the impact.

Nowhere here is Chris saying 'don't give us feedback' He is simply saying 'watch your tone with my team'

These guys spend enormous time an effort in 'cooking' us a fantastic game...have the manners and general consideration to at least acknowledge their hard work and not just sit and rip it apart.

I have never seen a game where the team is so intimatly involved on a daily basis with their players, they care about their playerbase an from the start felt more like friends than a remote unreachable team that were only in it as a job. Every time I have ever contacted them it felt more like sending a mail to someone I knew rather than some uncaring faceless person who 'would get around to it whenever'...

The GGG team have a loyal player base due to their loyalty to the players and their vision for providing us with a game we can love. I think they neatly scooped all the old D2 players into a net and gave us a true legacy to the game. They would have to do drastic things to lose the loyalty of those old diehard D2 players.

I find that a lot of people have lost the art of discussion and seem to thing that shouting and trolling is the way to get their point over. Discussion is an art form, I wish that those trolls would put more time into learning that art.


Bravo to the entire GGG team, keep up the fantastic work and buy yourselves a drink from me...(I sent you some beer money over on the shop link ;p)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Okay. I think the "No Hateful Posts" policy is a step in the right direction, but suffers from not being clear enough.

Clarifying some of the terminology and establishing that you're talking about a style of communication rather than a feeling, I believe, would help a lot in making it clear what you're trying to enforce.

They don't need to clarify just so people can nitpick when they don't remove something that meets their criteria or do remove something that didn't meet their criteria.

It can and should be subjective 100% at their discretion.

If a post/comment gets removed or someone gets probated for saying something that toes the line, they shouldn't have toed the line. In most cases, someone toeing the line is intentionally toeing the line just to see what they can get away with.

It's simple. If a person needs a guidebook to know if their words are hateful/offensive/inappropriate, they shouldn't post anything at all.

"

Panda413 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Okay. I think the "No Hateful Posts" policy is a step in the right direction, but suffers from not being clear enough.

Clarifying some of the terminology and establishing that you're talking about a style of communication rather than a feeling, I believe, would help a lot in making it clear what you're trying to enforce.

They don't need to clarify just so people can nitpick when they don't remove something that meets their criteria or do remove something that didn't meet their criteria.

It can and should be subjective 100% at their discretion.

If a post/comment gets removed or someone gets probated for saying something that toes the line, they shouldn't have toed the line. In most cases, someone toeing the line is intentionally toeing the line just to see what they can get away with.

It's simple. If a person needs a guidebook to know if their words are hateful/offensive/inappropriate, they shouldn't post anything at all.

And people wonder why there is so much corruption in the world XD.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Crosspost:

"

Michael_GGG wrote:

[You're] welcome to give us feedback on how we can do our jobs better because the common interest I'm sure most of us share is that we want the forum to be a better place to talk about Path of Exile.

Okay. I think the "No Hateful Posts" policy is a step in the right direction, but suffers from not being clear enough.

Hate is a very tricky emotion. There are things about the game which I hate, and my sharing that hatred for a virtual object is valid feedback. One of the primary purposes of reading player feedback is precisely to figure out what elements of the game they hate (and, if possible, why). Therefore, hatred — or any other feeling — is not the key determinant.

What you're really looking out for is a troublesome communication style. In particular, by "No Hateful Posts" what you really mean is "No Aggressive Posts." After all, all I have to do is copy and paste some of the worse behavior from that list to get the things you're really trying to prevent:
- try to dominate others
- use humiliation to control others
- criticize, blame, or attack others*
- act threateningly and rudely

* In this case you may wish to make it clear you're talking about people, rather than concepts.

Clarifying some of the terminology and establishing that you're talking about a style of communication rather than a feeling, I believe, would help a lot in making it clear what you're trying to enforce.

Rules can't be clear as water because that allows people to circumvent them and their posts instead of being bad are 'threading the line'.

I don't know how PoE moderation goes when people thread the line but where I am a moderator, depending on context/thread/discussion/user's history (sometimes)/etc, threading the line might or not be an offense. I don't know how this goes in PoE but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dealt with in a harsher way but I wouldn't know since I am not familiar on how moderation is done on this site.

As for hate. Hate is blind thus any hate directed at anything is, by my standards, not constructive at all, so the possibility of being probated, or whatever it is, increases quite a lot. If people want to direct 'hate' towards something, they can't show hate, they need to show just their pure dislike for it because a post showing dislike and hate are very, very different, the latter could probably earn you a probation but, again, I don't know how moderation works here.

Also, hate is an emotion and discussing things based on emotions is not logical/rational. So saying that emotions (feelings as you put it) aren't a detriment to a constructive discussion is quite amusing, to me that is.

The sentences you also provided for "No Aggressive Posts" are too, hateful in and by themselves, so "No Aggressive Posts" or "No Hateful Posts" will achieve the same thing.

As for clarifying the terminology, sure, that's good, but the terminology for "No Hateful Posts" seems to be clear cut.

The curse of the internet. When something gets too much popularity it gets flooded with trolls.
Good job GGG in defending you and us all from trolls toxic behaviour.

"

Panda413 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Okay. I think the "No Hateful Posts" policy is a step in the right direction, but suffers from not being clear enough.

Clarifying some of the terminology and establishing that you're talking about a style of communication rather than a feeling, I believe, would help a lot in making it clear what you're trying to enforce.

They don't need to clarify just so people can nitpick when they don't remove something that meets their criteria or do remove something that didn't meet their criteria.

It can and should be subjective 100% at their discretion.

It definitely can. At times, it should. But most of the time, it shouldn't — not because of some "rights of forumers," but as a simple courtesy.

Forumers feel better when the rules are clear. The moderation team also wants the rules to be clear; I guess I can't speak for them, but if I guessed it would be that they want players to know where the line is. Thus it's important to use the correct terminology and describe where the line is.

However, at the end of the day, that line is informal. Formally speaking, the forums are on private property, and GGG can do whatever the hell they want, with or without explanation or justification, and be fully within their rights.

So, in points of fact, yes, I actually agree with you; as far as the rules of reality go, it is subjective and 100% at their discretion. However, those are only the rules of reality; within that reality there is a game, being held by the moderators, and the rules of that game should be clearly defined to the players.

you know what the problem is right? politically correct.

You have/had one or 2 white knights complaining about words/opinions/attitude, and now GGG staff decided those people are right to feel offended and need protections, like if they are 6 year old kids.

Staff erasing whole post just for one word, even used out of context, staff erasing opinions just because it could potentially or maybe hurt someone/something/ggg staffs.

I have been painting my all life and exposed my art in galleries with people calling my works" piece of shit" and I never complain about it because I know this is what append.

But people are so sensible those days they can t act like adults and they take it all personal.

That s a lack of maturity... strange for a game with mature content/ mature visuals.

[Removed by Support]

NORTH KOREA.... REALLY

This is very good, working with developers, I know it is really not good when someone slams your product.

There is a lot of that in game as well. With that being said, I wish there was a category or an easier way to report that type of behavior.

How may people have to say in response "If you don't like it just go play something else and leave it to the people who do."

"

"The most odious aspect of this Climate of Fear is that it fundamentally changes how the citizenry thinks of itself and its relationship to the Government. A state can offer all the theoretical guarantees of freedom in the world, but those become meaningless if citizens are afraid to exercise them. In that climate, the Government need not even act to abridge rights; a fearful populace will voluntarily refrain on its own from exercising those rights.

Nobody wants to believe that they have been put in a state of fear, that they are intimidated, so rationalizations are often contrived: I don’t perceive any violations of my rights because there’s nothing I want to do that I’m not able to do. Inducing a fearful population to refrain from exercising rights — as it convinces itself no such thing is happening — is a far more effective, and far more pernicious, means of suppressing freedoms. That’s what a Climate of Fear uniquely enables." ~Glenn Greenwald