Too bad this new "policy" has developed into no negative posts being allowed rather than merely mean posts.
Also too bad it is not going to help one teeny tiny bit in retaining players. Desync, Lag, abominable trading and rng is still going to kill this game.
Too bad this new "policy" has developed into no negative posts being allowed rather than merely mean posts.
Also too bad it is not going to help one teeny tiny bit in retaining players. Desync, Lag, abominable trading and rng is still going to kill this game.
No matter how many posts you delete.
A lot of negative posts are happening. However, many resort to outright sarcasm to circumvent the "no hateful post".
Too bad this new "policy" has developed into no negative posts being allowed rather than merely mean posts.
Also too bad it is not going to help one teeny tiny bit in retaining players. Desync, Lag, abominable trading and rng is still going to kill this game.
No matter how many posts you delete.
Why are you still here then when its as bad as you say? I dont get it, dont like it dont play it. I dont play games like CoD because i dont like them. I dont go to their forum nagging about what i dont like.
Too bad this new "policy" has developed into no negative posts being allowed rather than merely mean posts.
Also too bad it is not going to help one teeny tiny bit in retaining players. Desync, Lag, abominable trading and rng is still going to kill this game.
No matter how many posts you delete.
Why are you still here then when its as bad as you say? I dont get it, dont like it dont play it. I dont play games like CoD because i dont like them. I dont go to their forum nagging about what i dont like.
Because the game has potential? It is ridiculous to give up due to a few setbacks.
Too bad this new "policy" has developed into no negative posts being allowed rather than merely mean posts.
Also too bad it is not going to help one teeny tiny bit in retaining players. Desync, Lag, abominable trading and rng is still going to kill this game.
No matter how many posts you delete.
Why are you still here then when its as bad as you say? I dont get it, dont like it dont play it. I dont play games like CoD because i dont like them. I dont go to their forum nagging about what i dont like.
Because the game has potential? It is ridiculous to give up due to a few setbacks.
Then people should stop bitching about it and wait and see where GGG takes POE. I dont complain about desync even though i have it regularly but i rather shut up and play the game than complain.
Why are you still here then when its as bad as you say? I dont get it, dont like it dont play it. I dont play games like CoD because i dont like them. I dont go to their forum nagging about what i dont like.
Because the game has potential? It is ridiculous to give up due to a few setbacks.
Then people should stop bitching about it and wait and see where GGG takes POE. I dont complain about desync even though i have it regularly but i rather shut up and play the game than complain.
Why wait and see, when you can actually attempt to make a difference? Ideally, all people should voice their opinions about everything related to PoE. However, due to time constraints, that's not possible.
^^ This, I turn off my in-game chat 90% of the time now because the quality of people posting ingame has dropped significantly.. I used to always try to help people with questions but even just a minute or two of reading chat completely ruins the experience for me.
I 'in-my-own-way' can fully understand why the forum policies are being updated and I throw an appreciative nod to you caring about your co-workers/developers quality of life while on the job..
lol.... there is an in-game chat? hehe Think I shut it off from day 1... it's the same on every game forum and every in game chat....
Seriously Chris the mental health of your staff? If you are making money... you don't suck... it's that simple ... tell em to buck up =)
Last edited by Zelec#1612 on Dec 12, 2013, 4:59:37 PM
]Perhaps you missed the part I mentioned "that you impose on yourself". As I've said, one is a preference and the other is not once objectivity comes into the equation. In fact if (you think) that was my premise, the following clause does support it: "It should then be applicable at all times for yourself and any source directed at you."
No, I did not say it was off-topic. I said it was slightly off-topic.
I did not say if my anecdote was relevant (or not). I said my post is relevant.
...that literally makes no sense and literally contradicts itself. it's either off-topic or it's not. so you're saying... it was "slightly" irrelevant? haha. the anecdote was the core of your post.
"
Deathstar2x wrote:
"
robmafia wrote:
i didn't have any hateful posts, either - and yet... censoring and a temp ban happened, anyway.
It does not have to be a hateful post for it to be removed.
obviously, since it just happened. come on.
"
robmafia wrote:
As Chris said in the original post "in before you nerf this too" can be removed by this rule as well.
thanks. the obvious really needed to be stated. again.
"
robmafia wrote:
Since you wrote nearly 10,000 characters and have been censored & put on probation by this new rule, I suggest you (or others) write a well written in-depth post of why this rule should not be imposed. These altercations between you and SkyCore doesn't exactly put you in an objective light regarding the objection of Grinding Gear Games' censorship.
i already did such. it changed nothing, and i suspect no one even actually read it, present company included. if you did, you wouldn't keep telling me to restate the same exact things again.
as for skycore - lolwut? given that most of my posts weren't directed to him, and he decided to take my posts to ggg personally... your claim appears to be backwards.
fail - noun - multitude favoring censorship, under the false premise that it can't affect them.
it's the same line of thinking that we should let the government into our homes/phones/computers, because we have nothing to hide...
[Removed by Support]
"Your forum signature was removed as it was considered to be inappropriate and a breach of our Code of Conduct."
...it was quotes. from the forum. lolz!
Last edited by robmafia#7456 on Dec 12, 2013, 7:00:29 PM
Why are you still here then when its as bad as you say? I dont get it, dont like it dont play it. I dont play games like CoD because i dont like them. I dont go to their forum nagging about what i dont like.
while this wasn't directed toward me, this basically illustrates my point.
people pretend censorship can't affect them, because they don't make hateful posts. then non-hateful posts get censored, but most still think it can't affect them/only will affect bad apples.
the "love it or leave it" mindset stifles improvement, productivity, and growth. people are generally critical about actions of ggg/the game, itself - because they like the game and want it to succeed. there's nothing wrong with stating perceived problems, in an attempt to have them resolved. the likelihood is that the game/ggg would benefit from improvement... right?
hell, isn't that basically the point of beta testing, to begin with?
ie: telling someone to quit poe and play cod, because they expressed areas where the game could use improvement, is contrary to the health of the game.
[Removed by Support]
"Your forum signature was removed as it was considered to be inappropriate and a breach of our Code of Conduct."
...it was quotes. from the forum. lolz!
Last edited by robmafia#7456 on Dec 12, 2013, 6:58:53 PM
Differentiating between self-imposed standards and objective axioms is in no ways contradictory. Saying "you're wrong", "contradictory", or "off-topic" does not refute my statements. Logical proof should be presented for the betterment of the discussion. Assuming or preferring that the anecdote is the core of the post also don't refute my statements, especially if it was stated that it just an anecdote to lay out the rest of the post. I'm not sure what's so funny. As for my "claim", it is prefaced with the word "personally". As for the favoring that I've stated "does not concern me", perhaps "ignoring" or "overlook" is an more appropriate term instead of favoring. It is not censorship I support; I support Property Rights as a fundamental axiom: I own myself and my effects. This forum is a part of Grinding Gear Games' property rights.
Personally, I find comparing Grinding Gear Games' censorship to government actions inaccurate. All users voluntarily agree to the rules set by Grinding Gear Games. ("By clicking Create Account you are agreeing to the terms of use and privacy policy") Not all persons living in the state-drawn border voluntarily agree to government involvement. Through logical reasoning from first principles, Property Rights argues the opposition of letting the government into our homes/phones/computer. I would go into detail, but I will not derail the thread with politics.
My initial post verbatim is below for convenience. Intelligent refutations welcomed.
Spoiler
"
Deathstar2x wrote:
"
robmafia wrote:
...attacked? WITH WORDS?
Slightly off-topic. I'll share it with this thread nonetheless.
Steven Bonnell, commonly known as Destiny, was part of the Starcraft 2 streaming community. In the middle of a match against an Asian player, he used a racist slur that is intended against Asians. After being released from compLexity Gaming, an online news aggregator said that the racist was fired. The distinctions to note is that the news aggregator used the term racist instead of "person that used racist remarks" or other variables and the term fired instead of quit or released.
What ensued: Bonnell's followers (Twitter's sense of the word henceforth) attacked the news aggregator with words because the news aggregator used words (with negative connotations) against Bonnell. Why would words have to be defended? They're just words after all, right? If Bonnell was "just using words", so was the news aggregator. So, then, why was Bonnell's followers, including his mother, so angry about the use of words? After all, isn't Bonnell use of the racial slur (starting with a g) just a word?
If words are just words, everybody can just spew words at one another. If my words are just words, and your words are just words, how can either be offensive? They're just words. I don't get why somebody would be upset over words... unless they're not just words. And that's where objectivity comes in. If you state that "words are just words", that would be an absolute dictim that you impose on yourself. It should then be applicable at all times for yourself and any source directed at you.
However, this is something that you cannot impose on others. Words are derived from concepts. Each with its own distinct abstraction and etymology. They have meaning. If Martin Luther King, Jr. was alive today, he would be outraged at his ethnicity/race and their "it's just a word" excuse for their use of the N-word (with an letter a modifier). Mr. King, calm down—it's just a word!
Source Link
The term You is not directed at the quoted person, a generic You (Plural) is used.
English equivalent of 他 would be a good replacement.
Ethnicity/race referring to biological and/or social identities.
Personal Item Filter(s):
https://www.pathofexile.com/item-filter/Rxpet8
