I realize that it might be a touchy subject, especially since it seems to involve some sense of freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech is already restricted by terms of use and other factors here on the site. I'd like to explore the possibility that in a certain specific sections, users who create a thread could be permitted to block specific users and newer users from posting by entering the names into a "block list" at the time of creation. The names would be added before replies occur which would primarily be an "ignore" feature that prevents users on that list from posting for the sake of subtle harrassment. This is not without great thought. For me, it's specifically the suggestion forums where certain users seem to delight in simply being negative for the sake of negativity or in other instances, seem to target threads created by users they dislike.
I realize there are some safeguards in place already, but honestly, if I create a thread about a discussion, I think such a minimal amount of control over the content of it seems appropriate. Far from being a moderator in themselves, users could keep the subjects on topic more often if there were less of an opportunity to "grief" via the forums. Certainly, places of general discussion and official topics wouldn't be able to fall in that category. I could see spill over occurring, but honestly, some simply negative posts like "Turbine will never do it and you're foolish to suggest that" don't appear to fall under a reportable category. These people clearly continue to get away with what they're doing, but the spill over that they might start instigating (looking for an unrestricted forum thread to grief) WOULD then be reportable, for a variety of reasons.
I get that it's the internet, but the ONLY people that would have a problem with this are the ones that are looking to abuse the privilege of posting in the first place. I can't see it used if respectful discussions take place. There are certain people that delight in seeing their name on multiple pages. It's clearly gotten "worse" since F2P.
Is this a must have feature? No, and I don't want to make more work for people for no reason. There just doesn't have to be a judge and jury all the time on whether comments have the right to appear. It's not even a matter of restricting someone's speech, because that can be a matter of opinion as well. The current rating system doesn't seem to work, especially if people have multiple accounts or do favors for other griefers simply because they themselves enjoy seeing the consternation their posts cause. Yes, there are some immature people, but again, I'm not looking for permanent block lists, but it would help if there wasn't a need for responding each time someone wants to add nothing at all except to their post count or feel like they've had the last word. As the creator of a thread, I'm not asking to be able to eliminate opposing opinions. I'm looking to keep people from making themselves the center of attention.
Anyway, I do realize that it's a controversial thing to suggest, but things evolve. Perhaps experimenting with it would bear out some evidence - and simply not liking it because they can't post isn't evidence that it's harmful. On the contrary, those posts of complaint would be evidence that it is.
Last edited by Ardineck; Jun 21 2012 at 09:50 AM.
Reason: make the preventative feature more apparent
If you just want to /ignore them on the forum, you can do that, but that wont stop other users from reading it.
If you want a walled posting garden, don't try and have it here, go elsewhere.
Otherwise, this is a community, and as long as we abide by the rules, everyone is free to speak their mind, even when we disagree. I hope your time here is productive and that you don't let the people you describe as 'griefers' get to you.
I'm not talking about not wanting people to disagree with me. There's no way for someone like me to reduce the reputation of someone with higher reputation that is posting on a thread just for the sake of it, especially when that person takes opportunities to reduce my own reputation, whether I point out the infraction or not. I'm not afraid to be wrong, but there are just some people who love causing problems. I don't think there's any problem taking that privilege away from them in certain places. It's a "time, place, manner" restriction that I think would be appropriate.
Yes, this is the internet, free speech, freedom, and so on. But....not everyone is able to interact with others on a rational approach.
The cause of this may be the sunken average age since introducing F2P, but adults also loose their temper.
However, the more or less anonymous way of answering to blog posts reduces existing inhibitions and brings up aggressions that otherwise won't find their way out to the world.
So...I fully understand your concerns and compared with other blog spheres (i.e. blogspot) your options to reduce unwanted answers may be minimal to non existent.
The blog owner should be able to block spam and insulting posts. It is his blog or his thread and he has to be responsible. And me, for my part, I don't want to have to filter verbal rubbish by my own as soon as I begin to read a thread. I'd prefer a reasonable blog owner, who saves me this.
On the other hand, this might lead to rather short threads, because it could happen, that critical posts might be blocked, too.
So, all in all, you will always be confronted with the possibility of misuse. And from that POV it is understandable, that no restrictions are implemented so far. But this doesn't change the fact, that the owner of a thread is still the owner. And if the owner blocks all answers his threads might become short. And in the long run, answerers will notice that their post are blogged and can ignore the person for the future.
I am torn between restriction and freedom and its a difficult path where you can all to soon make a wrong turn.
Nevertheless, blog users should make it clear to those, that want to act like a bull in a china shop, that their behaviour is unwanted. This is a kind of moral courage that happens all to rarely.
Thanks. I think you see exactly where I'm coming from with this idea. I would think, much like capitalism in an economy, that a person posting in say, Suggestions, WANTS a great number of posts in order to show that it's a good idea. Certainly restricting posts from certain people might cut down on criticism, but what that person will then realize is that they aren't getting that support they need by keeping out people they just don't like. I think that specific aspect of this safeguard in a sense, polices itself. What it does is prevent certain people from "hijacking" the thread or simply posting negative comments for either reasons that have to do with the hijackers dislike of the person or the argument made. Do we lose some constructive criticisms? I don't think we lose that many, because if those blocked were mostly constructive they wouldn't be on the "banned" list, I would think. If one person is "following" my posts and attacking every argument (but not me, because then they'd be reportable and this issue wouldn't exist) time after time with short off-topic comments, then I think this idea of blocking posters who practice a subtle form of harrassment will give the thread creator the chance to keep the topic on course. If it's really bad, of course, the moderators step in, but they do that already anyway when the situation warrants. If "it's their thread, they can block you if you want" is the mantra in specific subforums, then none of the power is taken out of the hands of those moderators. They retain all other means to do their own policing. It just seems that my idea gives the strength of the idea a chance to live or die on its' own rather than degenerating into the arguments over the arguments against it.
I appreciate your frustrations in trying to express your ideas without interruption. However, this is a discussion forum, not a parliamentary proceeding. If I may make one observation, your tone seems to indicate that you view some of these incidents as personal attacks. If another player is annoying you, the forum's ignore feature is a handy way to avoid escalating a situation. If a player is actively harassing you, you can and should report that player to Turbine.
While you may be trustworthy enough to moderate your own threads, most of us are not. I wouldn't even trust myself with that feature. I especially wouldn't trust that scoundrel, Crell, who is almost never right, except when I'm usually wrong. I would never have dared to post that here, even in jest, if Crell had started the thread and could censor me. (To be clear, Crell is a great guy who is very knowledgeable about the game, the community, and the company. But you can see how easily even the possibility of your suggestion would lead to a chilling effect on conversation. Crell isn't easy to offend, but why would I risk it, even to introduce some humor?)
From the remainder of your post, I think you're a mature enough individual to see these incidents as mere interruptions (rather than attacks) and treat them as such. If you're speaking publicly and are interrupted by a heckler, you handle it by politely ignoring it and continuing your speech. You might even take advantage of the interruption to introduce a new perspective that reinforces your statement, bringing the audience back into focus. Unless, of course, you are a candidate for the presidency, in which case you wait for the Secret Service to intervene amid the inevitable cries of "Don't tase me, bro!"
In short, "Turbine will never do it and you're foolish to suggest that." (Sorry, that was just too tempting to resist!)
I think your points are valid, but as I previously stated, I think those concerns end up working themselves out. I could be wrong, but the only way I could see it being abused is by someone violating the terms of using this forum in the first place. Preventing specific people from commenting wouldn't prevent everyone from doing so. I'm not trying to make this a "last word" button which shuts off people from responding directly to posts. It would be a preventative function specifically designed to prevent a specific occurrence. I guess I'm just of the opinion that the abusers in this case would be shooting themselves in their own foot, so to speak. If they want comments, they can't block everyone. They can't "bump" their own thread and it takes exactly the same effort to create their own buzz as it would for the harrassers to circumvent the safeguard.
I certainly appreciate frank discussion on it. I'm not holding my breath on this suggestion, but nothing I've seen so far is anything I hadn't already considered. It's entirely possible that there is something I haven't.
This is a community, and players will be less likely to invest their time expressing a valid dissenting (or even just unpopular) opinion on a topic when there is even the possibility that their opinions might be capriciously censored by another player who happens to be less enlightened than you.
I will not waste my time telling everyone else why I'm right and you're wrong (even if I really am right!) if there's even the slightest chance you can silence my version of the truth.
This is a community, and players will be less likely to invest their time expressing a valid dissenting (or even just unpopular) opinion on a topic when there is even the possibility that their opinions might be capriciously censored by another player who happens to be less enlightened than you.
I will not waste my time telling everyone else why I'm right and you're wrong (even if I really am right!) if there's even the slightest chance you can silence my version of the truth.
It's precisely that which makes the function work. If I block you from this thread when I create it, for example, your time is never wasted. You don't have the option of wasting your time. You wouldn't be able to post if you were blocked. If you weren't blocked, you'd be able to post your opinions.
It is my opinion that those who don't want to take the time to discuss it and just want to say "I'm right and you're wrong" don't deserve that opportunity. If you can't tell me why, then you don't deserve it.
It is a community, but the people that would be affected by the rule are the people it is designed to prevent against making the comments they're currently allowed to make. If they storm off in a huff, are we really losing anything at all? We're not losing dissenting opinions, we're losing people who don't really want to participate. It is not reasonable to assume that because a person is prevented from commenting on specific topics here that all people or even most people will stop participating as a whole. Are you saying you would be one of those? I don't understand that or agree with that at all.
I apologize; I didn't realize you wished to preemptively prevent specific players from replying to your topics. I thought you were asking for the ability to retroactively moderate your own topics by removing disruptive posts.
If you know in advance that a specific player will attempt to derail your topics, why not just use the forum's ignore feature? And if you don't trust other conscientious players to use that same ignore feature at their own wise discretion, why do you wish to engage them in conversation in the first place?
Your issue seems more personal than systematic. I'd strongly recommend you contact one of the Community Managers via private message to explain your situation. They're friendly people, and even if they're unable to intervene directly, they'll be able to offer you some helpful, expert advice.
Yes, it would be a preemptive thing and not something you could do just to shut up someone or get the last word. It would only disallow a small group and not give editorial control, just allow a person to feel like it reaches the largest group he or she wants. It certainly wouldn't stop people from criticizing the post, but would allow a person who feels like a target to get their point across without pointless interruption.
I know that when a person who does want to harrass another goes to post and can't do so, it might lead to that harrasser scouring the boards for another thread by that same user just to harang them. What that does is make it a clear case of harrassment. I guess at this point there is that crucial piece of the puzzle missing in my specific case. This would keep from being pestered. As an adult, I was hoping to avoid involving a third party, but I'm not the only one who I've noticed might use this feature. There are a couple of usernames I could point to, but for obvious reasons, I would never.
I consider it a simple matter of opinion that prevention in this case and in this manner isn't obtrusive to the community, at least to me. I completely understand that not everyone might share that opinion, but for those suffering, I would think it a welcome addition to subforum thread control. I don't want to prevent open discussion, I want to foster it by keeping out those who repeatedly show that it's not discussion they are after. Yes, that's what we have with the internet, but it is my opinion that we shouldn't be afraid to try new ways to do it.
Thanks for being patient and trying to understand my point of view.
EDIT: I tried to be more clear and edit previous posts, not for content, but for clarity.
While you may be trustworthy enough to moderate your own threads, most of us are not. I wouldn't even trust myself with that feature. I especially wouldn't trust that scoundrel, Crell, who is almost never right, except when I'm usually wrong. I would never have dared to post that here, even in jest, if Crell had started the thread and could censor me. (To be clear, Crell is a great guy who is very knowledgeable about the game, the community, and the company. But you can see how easily even the possibility of your suggestion would lead to a chilling effect on conversation. Crell isn't easy to offend, but why would I risk it, even to introduce some humor?)
Replace all uses of Crell in this paragraph with Fredelas or any of member of the site who isn't a Turbine employee and you've got my opinion in a nut-shell.
This is an interactive community not a one-way blog. There are plenty of options out there for that.
Believe me, I've posted some pretty out there opinions that people really didn't like the logic behind, but because they were logical, and well written some users reconsidered their positions. That's something we should have more of in my opinion. Reasoned disagreement, not 'It's got to be my way or else.', which is exactly what preemptively moderated threads encourage.
Reasoned disagreement, not 'It's got to be my way or else.', which is exactly what preemptively moderated threads encourage.
I agree. Being able to keep a very, very small percentage of people from commenting promotes reasoned disagreement. I don't want to be the only voice heard, whether I'm agreed with or not. I just don't want every post I make a lesson on etiquette. Don't get me wrong, I think I'm able to prove myself in debate against the very best, but I'm tired of every thread created becoming a quote-fest about something totally and utterly unrelated to the topic at hand. Preemptively moderating or blocking those people gives people a choice - be peaceful and tolerant or take it elsewhere.
I agree. Being able to keep a very, very small percentage of people from commenting promotes reasoned disagreement. I don't want to be the only voice heard, whether I'm agreed with or not. I just don't want every post I make a lesson on etiquette. Don't get me wrong, I think I'm able to prove myself in debate against the very best, but I'm tired of every thread created becoming a quote-fest about something totally and utterly unrelated to the topic at hand. Preemptively moderating or blocking those people gives people a choice - be peaceful and tolerant or take it elsewhere.
By pre-empting posters though you are removing the choice for them to be "peaceful and tolerant" and making it for them.
If Turbine were to allow such a thing, one could forsee a point in time where threads contain only posts that agree with the OP, this would not be a good representation on the community and in itself is open to wide abuse from the small number of people who make it their business to take offence to everything, not to mention those that would block people just for the sake of either being A, In favour of Turbine or B, Those who have valid criticisms.
I get that it's the internet, but the ONLY people that would have a problem with this are the ones that are looking to abuse the privilege of posting in the first place. I can't see it used if respectful discussions take place. There are certain people that delight in seeing their name on multiple pages. It's clearly gotten "worse" since F2P.
I am afraid that I believe that your statement above is incorrect. I, for one would have a problem with this proposal.
There are plenty of people whose posts I choose not to read. That is what the ignore list is for. I would not, however, seek to prevent them from posting, unless they transgress the Community Rules and are banned by the PTBs.
We are a community, which means that we span a wide range of opinions, character types, and approaches to expressing our opinions. Inevitably some members are going to find some aspects of other members to be irritating, perhaps even to the extent of being obnoxious.
We have rules, which are created and policed by Turbine. Sub-contracting any part of that down to members, acting according to their own agenda, seems like a recipe for devaluing the forums.
The forum members that are abusive. Break the ToS and CoC of the forums are punished by the moderators. They either clean up their act or are permanently banned. You do not need to worry about this folks. They ones you have to worry are the people that post according to the guide lines.
I hate to see any regular forum member having this capability. Essentially what you are asking for the ability to gag members that you do not agree with. You go down the list of active posters. Disable all the forum members that are dissenters.
You want to have this capability. Create your own fan site. You make the rules.
If you got someone that is really upsetting you, put them on your ignore list. That way you are not tempted to get into a internet flame war that end badly for one or both of you. Or if you think they are breaking the rules. Report their post to the moderators with an explanation of what the problem is.
Bottom Line - These forums are a discussion forum where all active users can comment on any post or thread as long as they obey the overall Turbine regulations.
You want direct conversations with Turbine employees that is what private messages, email and other channels are for. Assuming of course the employee is willing to open the channel from their end.
Unless stated otherwise, all content in this post is My Personal Opinion.
I still think it's a worthwhile thing to try. I would rather err on the side of the thread creator in these cases for reasons I've already established. There really isn't a freedom of speech issue with the specific set of concerns I've addressed. As I mentioned, I'd rather a couple of people throw tantrums in silence than continue to allow the subtle harrassment and name calling I'm seeing more and more. I understand not everyone likes it. No one needs to say things like "take your ball and go home" here - because I have just as much right to say that to you. If they took my suggestion into consideration and made the change would you want to hear me say go start your own blog?
Things change. I think this is a good one. I understand the concerns, but to me - and you don't have to agree - those concerns seem more like hysteria. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that I'm right, but I don't need people pretending that they're 100% sure either. Once again, this is a preventative measure I'm talking about, not a reactive one. I'm talking about locking the front door, not kicking people out for being rowdy. I'm not suggesting these people have never done anything wrong - these are people that came to your last party and the one before that and the one before that and caused problems. Now I'm throwing a party and they're not invited.
Someone immature will surely go overboard and block all the people he disagrees with...and then post a suggestion in the suggestion forums and no one will post...and his suggestion will die on the vine. Problem taken care of. It works this way in many parts of real life. You can't walk into a public meeting and start shouting. I mean, you CAN, but then you're forcibly removed from the proceedings. Do it again and they'll keep you out of future proceedings. Those that show they play by the rules get to speak.
I'm not talking about giving forum moderation privileges to users. I'm talking about blocking out noise. I get that you don't see it that way and that's fine. We can disagree. What tends to happens is that people start telling me I'm wrong for having a valid opinion. Is this going to happen? Probably not, but I hope so because I would love for those who whine and cry to leave. Some of those are the ones that this suggestion is designed to block.
I'm not talking about giving forum moderation privileges to users. I'm talking about blocking out noise. I get that you don't see it that way and that's fine. We can disagree. What tends to happens is that people start telling me I'm wrong for having a valid opinion. Is this going to happen? Probably not, but I hope so because I would love for those who whine and cry to leave. Some of those are the ones that this suggestion is designed to block.
I have no problem with you holding your opinion. I just think that the consequences would lead to the balkanization of the forums and completely remove any point in reading them.
It would do nothing to raise the quality of debate, which is rarely achieved by suppressing voices, but rather by helping them, even those that disagree with you, to better structure their arguments.
Passing off the concerns of people who disagree with you as hysteria makes you in no way better than the people you are wanting to self moderate. You seem to be ignoring any well thought and well presented points against your suggestion and instead focus on pushing your own opinion.
I'll freely admit there are more obvious trollers and and one does not have to be immature to misuse your suggested function. However you come across as just as bad as some of those a lot less subtle and a lot bettwe written but still just as blindsided with your own opinion.
You also say that you would "love for those who whine and cry to leave" these are not the words of someone who has a valid concern over the content of their threads. Sounds more like someone wanting to bait others into an argument. Theres no reason for you to use that choice selection of words. Yet you did.
Your posts are well thought out and well written as i've said however somthing just does not sit right either with your suggestion or the tone of your later posts. Call it womens intuition or whatever but i still have to disagree
I'd like to explore the possibility that in a certain specific sections, users who create a thread could be permitted to block specific users and newer users from posting by entering the names into a "block list" at the time of creation.
Yeah, great idea, so you basically want the forum to be a huge case of 'my way or the highway'
With the whole hysteria-fest that is forced emotes do you think Enginekid or myself would get anywhere near them? not a chance, so the incessant whiners could whine on and on and on between themselves whipping themselves up into an even bigger frenzy of half truths, total untruths and exaggeration without anyone having the audacity to disagree.
Go and start your own forum if you want to control it totally.
Proud to be a 2013 Lotro Player Council member - my ears are always open but for the 907th time - I CAN'T GET FLYING GOATS PUT INTO GAME.
I have additional comments relevant to this topic which I believe may be helpful to other readers.
However, I will not post them here, to illustrate what might happen if I were to have accidentally offended the original poster and had been prevented from replying to this topic at all.
That's a whole lot of waffle to say nothing, give us one sound reason why you would want to exclude anyone from a thread you start that doesn't include 'I don't like their opinion' 'I want my threads run my way' or are you so bothered about some little green blobs that you want to protect your rep?
I thought I very clearly had already done that. One sounds reason to exclude someone from a thread is: one person creates suggestion threads and one specific user posts on several of them simply saying "Turbine will never do that" or "tl;dr". As far as reputation is concerned, it's not about protecting anything. I've monitored negative reputation and it's being used as retaliation. Is that mature? Suddenly there are "red blobs" popping up and I'm PRETTY sure I know where it's coming from and it's not because I've been inflammatory, derogatory, disruptive, trolling, or violating community guidelines. That doesn't matter, as long as someone has "earned" (and the quotes are to denote the sarcastic use of that word) more reputation. Maybe some of that reputation was for thoughtful and insightful posts. That doesn't mean they always are and it doesn't mean it should be allowed to be used in the way it is.
There's a good reason. That one person doesn't get to do that anymore. Everyone else gets to post about what they don't like about that suggestion.
Edit: Also, I hope this post shows one of the previous posters what I meant. It's a thinly veiled insult that really still misses the point. You're telling me I'm long winded when I'm trying to respond specifically to many different concerns, one of which you seem to have actually completely missed yourself. I pointed out all throughout this thread exactly what kinds of things this suggestion is supposed to cover. Either you didn't read them, you missed them, or you're trolling.
I thought I very clearly had already done that. One sounds reason to exclude someone from a thread is: one person creates suggestion threads and one specific user posts on several of them simply saying "Turbine will never do that" or "tl;dr".
There's a good reason. That one person doesn't get to do that anymore. Everyone else gets to post about what they don't like about that suggestion.
Edit: Also, I hope this post shows one of the previous posters what I meant. It's a thinly veiled insult that really still misses the point. You're telling me I'm long winded when I'm trying to respond specifically to many different concerns, one of which you seem to have actually completely missed yourself. I pointed out all throughout this thread exactly what kinds of things this suggestion is supposed to cover. Either you didn't read them, you missed them, or you're trolling.
People that disagree with you or post an opinion that you do not agree with are not trolls as you call them, I read your posts very carefully. As for "thinly veiled insults" well you seem to be very good at them yourself. You claim you would promote free speech on either side yet you want to censor, lets make up your mind there.
Your "actual suggestion" you say has been missed when in fact, it's been addressed directly by several people and i hate to quote but " Either you didn't read them, you missed them, or you're trolling" - your own words. Valid explanations and reasons have been given as to why people dont think it would be a good addition to the forums. I get the feeling that by not addressing these people but instead ignoring or insulting (calling us trolls) you are contradicting yourself.
By your own criteria you are becoming the very poster that you would block
People that disagree with you or post an opinion that you do not agree with are not trolls as you call them, I read your posts very carefully. As for "thinly veiled insults" well you seem to be very good at them yourself. You claim you would promote free speech on either side yet you want to censor, lets make up your mind there.
Your "actual suggestion" you say has been missed when in fact, it's been addressed directly by several people and i hate to quote but " Either you didn't read them, you missed them, or you're trolling" - your own words. Valid explanations and reasons have been given as to why people dont think it would be a good addition to the forums. I get the feeling that by not addressing these people but instead ignoring or insulting (calling us trolls) you are contradicting yourself.
By your own criteria you are becoming the very poster that you would block
There are posts that have talked about the point. People are free to disagree. I'm not talking about people disagreeing with me. What they're doing is inventing a scenario and debating over that scenario. I'm not talking about blocking people that disagree with me. How can I know that they're disagreeing with me if they don't post? I'm talking about people that do worse than this, though this is precisely the start of the path to which the end is which frustrates me:
[QUOTE]That's a whole lot of waffle to say nothing, give us one sound reason why you would want to exclude anyone from a thread you start that doesn't include 'I don't like their opinion' 'I want my threads run my way' or are you so bothered about some little green blobs that you want to protect your rep?[\QUOTE]
I already replied to it. I already gave a sound reason in several places. What does this post add?
Now, you say I'm becoming the kind of poster I am trying to block? I'm constantly having to restate myself, explain, and defend myself, not just against valid insights, but against alternate realities where people continue to act as if they are experts and I'm an idiot. I'm trying to repeatedly point out that I'm having to elevate my tone to counteract one that continues to assume that somehow my opinion is less valid, then when I do so, it's somehow evidence to you that I'm worse than the people making trouble.
Allow me to point something else out. I responded to that person by quoting him and then used that phrase that you quoted above. I was responding directly to one person, not every post in the thread. That person either didn't read, missed it while reading, didn't understand, or is trolling. Somehow you extrapolated that to mean I'm talking about every person in the thread.
Also, I AM promoting free speech. At no point am I asking to censor posts, I wish to prevent harrassing ones. Now, you can call that censorship if you wish. That doesn't mean it IS censorship, but you're free to disagree with my opinion on that. I want to point out again that organizations DO have a right to monitor and restrict speech in time, place and manner and that indeed, this forum already does that. It DOES in fact already censor threads and censor the forums. I think it is hypocritical then to make these attacks on me where I'm referred to as 'Stalin' and in your own words you are making assumptions based on not what you're considering, but my tone...a tone which has not even matched the tone which is being displayed toward me. You are free to do so, but please don't pretend that it has anything to do with the argument at hand.
Also, it's quite obvious that instead of actual debate on the suggestion people are calling into question my motives. I wouldn't venture a guess at a percentage except to say it's EASILY above half of the "opposition" and actual comments about the actual suggestion of preventing nuisances from posting on suggestion threads. Where it's been warranted, I've responded directly. Where it's been warranted, I've dealt with what I feel are distractions.
I don't know exactly what you're expecting. It's quite easy to criticize, but I don't feel most people do that well. What passes for constructive criticism is often childish and immature, but people are so fast to defend it. I'm not trying to censor you. I'm dismantling arguments by paying attention and attacking the arguments. When that happens, people take it personally and I can't help that. Saying that a person might be trolling when they are performing the actions that fit the definition as Turbine has defined it is not name-calling. It's calling it what it is. No matter how I phrase it someone is not going to like it. If I keep writing and responding well, someone is going to assume that I think I'm always right. I can say 3 or 4 times that I want to promote healthy debate, but it doesn't matter, because maybe that person CAN'T write well or CAN'T think deeply about things or just won't. It doesn't mean they're right. There is SO much debate over semantics on the internet already - in fact, I'm listening to The Nerdist podcast right now and they're debating this very thing. Some people revel in being problems and complainers (and I'm not talking about people who make valid complaints and try to come up with solutions - I'm talking about a different kind of person there) and just LOVE seeing stuff like this. I want to take some of that power away from them. Admitting that I would in fact experience some satisfaction when those people have that "fun" as they'd call it taken away does not make me wrong, does not make my position wrong and doesn't make me a worse person or even close. I am not one of the somber when I see Sauron meet his end. I'm one of the jubilant.
I thought I very clearly had already done that. One sounds reason to exclude someone from a thread is: one person creates suggestion threads and one specific user posts on several of them simply saying "Turbine will never do that" or "tl;dr".
There's a good reason. That one person doesn't get to do that anymore. Everyone else gets to post about what they don't like about that suggestion.
And why is that a good reason? The thread starter posts a suggestion that he/she feels is a good idea - which is an opinion. The responder posts a reply - which is an opinion. Why is the original opinion more valid than the response? A post of "tl;dr" tells the thread starter that at least one person might have been in favor of the suggestion if it were written more succinctly, or with better paragraphing, or some other reason - but at least the thread was clicked on and that means it was noticed. It is entirely possible that the original suggestion might be grought up in a chat somewhere else, even in a derogatory manner, and someone might think, "That isn't a half bad idea. I think I will go check out the thread."
It is similar to the old adage, "No publicity is bad publicity." My opinion is that as long as a post does not violate the forum rules it is a valid post and should stand. If it violates the forum rules report it and let the Turbine emplyees do their job without interference.
Last edited by chuimon; Jun 24 2012 at 07:23 AM.
Reason: I should have a least one cup of coffee before trying to spell. :)
I think that this gets to the crux of your proposal, and highlights its basic flaw.
Effectively what you would be doing is making your entire thread subject to your ignore list. You would be depriving others of the ability to make their own judgements as to whether a respondent is trolling, and even worse, you would be making that call without seeing what they would have posted.
You would be assuming that someone who you deem to be a troll was incapable of not trolling in your thread, which does not reasonable to me.
Given that one person's troll is another person's sage. the criteria are so subjective as to be meaningful.
I once received negative rep for "trolling". It was on a post that was 100% factual, and the same post received multiple positive reps for being a positive contribution to a debate that was generally being dominated by knee-jerk unsubstantiated posts.
If implemented, the proposal would likely be abused by the "trolls" themselves to block the voices of sanity from their own threads. The forums would become an anodyne collection of one-sided threads, where the only way to have any sort of contentious discussion would be by means of 2 threads cross-quoting from each other.
I believe that the solution would be worse than the problem, if indeed one accepts that there is a problem in the first place, which I do not.
The use of the concept of "free speech" in this context is essentially spurious as the (US) constitutional right does not apply to a private forum. I continue to trust in the moderators to apply our community rules.
First, I wasn't suggesting that it work off a current ignore list. Since that part might not be clear, let me restate that at creation a person would be able to add a name to a list of people prevented from posting on the suggestion. Other people don't have to decide whether a person is trolling or not. It's plain to see. That the person was doing it somewhere else is the issue. I'm not going to pick people out of the blue. I'm going to pick people that, based on my recent past posts have been posting in each thread just to say they don't like it...not give any reasons...just, a kind of "move on loser" type of post that it sounds like we've all seen before...or maybe some of the posters in here have done that. Not sure. I don't monitor everyone else's posts. Someone could use it to block out a person they don't like, exactly the same way that they could keep them out of their party if they didn't want to invite them. Everyone but you is invited. Until someone else causes trouble. Then I'm not inviting them to my next party. That I would be making that call ahead of time I think is more appropriate than the alternative, which is to go back and reprimand and edit out what they don't like. Right now, that still can happen if that person is trolling, but reputation is not a two way street. I've received several negative reputation ticks over the last couple of days for politely expressing my opinion and trying to defend myself after being baited and name-called. Do THOSE people have negative rep? Not likely, because the reputation is too high for negative reputation to be given. That's the way Turbine has set it up.
I've said it before, but I think it polices itself. Turbine is not going to "listen" to a small group of people patting themselves on the back. It's a suggestion forum. If there is a healthy discussion taking place then they're more likely to look into whatever repercussions might exist from making a change. "Tl;dr" is not part of a healthy discussion. "Turbine is never going to do that" is not part of a discussion. Shooting someone's ideas down simply by saying they don't like it is not discussing anything. Following a person around on the forums because you don't like them and making inane comments is not...
You believe that the solution is worse than the problem and I do not. We differ in that respect and I respect your opinion. I think you're wrong just like you think I'm wrong. It doesn't mean you're on the "right side". That I disagree with you does not make me part of the "right side". I know you know that, but I hope you know I know that.
Your last sentence: someone can't use the argument that I'm infringing on their free speech without accepting that even in the most broadest of cases, it's not entirely "free speech" that they're calling upon. I was making that argument because I was trying to show that you can't say I'm restricting free speech when what I'm calling is already allowable. We all accept the conditions for using the forums in the terms of use agreement. The ones that Turbine has set aside for us are indeed even more stringent than the ones set down by the government. Even at the highest level of "free speech" there are allowable restrictions. Therefore, Turbine has even stricter rules, because it is a private entity. It is allowed to do that because we accept it. We don't have a right to this service, we sign a contract. People who want to make the argument that I want to infringe on free speech are therefore assuming something that isn't there. I'm not against free speech. I want Turbine to invoke a time, place, and manner restriction on free speech. Incidentally, there are a great many parts of US law that would surprise many people which actually do put limitations on how private entities can restrict free speech. I don't believe that any would pertain in this case (and indeed, internet law is in a very early place), but as I am familiar with media law. I am simply trying to point out that someone can't use an argument against me and then prevent me from using that same argument against them. If it were "free speech" (and that's why I've been using those quotes in all those other cases) then there would still be a case for Turbine to allow the restriction of certain types. Increasingly, the internet will become either more or less permissive. I see it as becoming moreso and that's the reason of this post - I'd like to halt the permissive nature of some forms of speech - not to prevent dissention. I'm well aware that some people would use it in a way that to paraphrase your argument would be inappropriate, but I've already stated that I feel the opposite way. I would rather err on that side. Again, I respect your opinion - I simply disagree with it. I don't think I've been incorrect in my arguments. I think you have and I think I've directly addressed those places. You are free to disagree.
And why is that a good reason? The thread starter posts a suggestion that he/she feels is a good idea - which is an opinion. The responder posts a reply - which is an opinion. Why is the original opinion more valid than the response? A post of "tl;dr" tells the thread starter that at least one person might have been in favor of the suggestion if it were written more succinctly, or with better paragraphing, or some other reason - but at least the thread was clicked on and that means it was noticed. It is entirely possible that the original suggestion might be grought up in a chat somewhere else, even in a derogatory manner, and someone might think, "That isn't a half bad idea. I think I will go check out the thread."
It is similar to the old adage, "No publicity is bad publicity." My opinion is that as long as a post does not violate the forum rules it is a valid post and should stand. If it violates the forum rules report it and let the Turbine emplyees do their job without interference.
You actually do make a valid point about posting that a person might not have written something succinctly enough or in a better form, but I disagree that "tl;dr" would be a valid way of doing so. I'll still concede that if someone were to put it in even a short form like you've done that it's adding to the discussion. There are two things I'm trying to do with my examples. One, I'm trying not to call attention to any one person that might have posted something on a thread of mine in the past. I am not trying to single anyone out with my examples. I could, of course, do so, but I think that it's actually a violation of community guidelines. I could be wrong, but this type of specific calling out makes me a little more cautious with my examples.
If this was just happening once or even twice I don't think it's an issue. This is to combat the ones who are "making a living" so to speak out of posting on almost every thread for what reasons, I can't really figure out. All I do know is that they're not adding to the discussion. I disagree that "tl;dr" is anything more than derogatory, inflammatory, and trolling. I'm not going to suppose I know how long a post has to be in order to be constructive, but I really would have thought everyone would agree that "tl;dr" wasn't it.
I'd disagree (working in the media) that any publicity is good publicity (one of the many forms of that adage you bring up), but you're free to have your opinion on that. It can be a very good thing, but again, I don't think it's really publicity in this case. It's not an advertisement. In some cases (and I can freely concede that it's not even in every case) the discussion ends up being on some tangential or unrelated subject...not unlike it has been in places on this thread. There are posts that directly address concerns users and posters have for the suggestion. There are many others that people are making up their own idea about what the suggestion is or name-calling.
I think I'm just going to stop replying to those tangential and distracting arguments, as another poster suggested to start showing which ones I might block. It doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome thoughtful posts like this one and doesn't mean I'm "conceding defeat" because to me it's quite obvious who the hecklers are and who is baiting and trolling and how some of them operate in concert.
Just reading this thread and trying to grasp what is being talked about.
As far as I understand it, you would like threads to remain "on point" and not diverge from their intended purpose, be it for one side of a topic or another. Please correct me if that understanding of mine is a bit off.
I think it's an admirable sentiment, the whole focusing discussion thing, but that's not really how the internet or social interactions work, as far as I can tell. I've known people who, in real life, would reference anime and the Gundam series when the discussion is about politics. Or who simply say, "This is boring! Let's talk about X instead of Y." They're entitled to what they say, but I prefer to let the facepalming or subtle instruction of people on the folly of forcing divergent topics into a public sphere occur as opposed to ignoring them outright or blocking them from the discussion. Better they learn to participate in accordance with a discussion than be afraid to speak up and feel ostracized.
Anyway, I could be wrong, so let me say this to end.
I was born and raised in West Philadelphia
And the grounds of play was where most of my days were spent.
Resting and relaxing and not thinking of fools
I was shooting some baskets outside of school
When a few disreputable men who were up to no good
Started making trouble in the neighborhood.
I got into one little fight and my mother, she became terrified.
So she bought me a computer and an internet service, and subscribed to LOTRO.
/bow
EDITED TO ADD: I say the middle portion in all earnestness, and jest before and after it. I hope you don't look too unkindly on me.
Last edited by iamstillwater; Jun 24 2012 at 08:01 AM.
Reason: added stuff
There are posts that have talked about the point. People are free to disagree. I'm not talking about people disagreeing with me. What they're doing is inventing a scenario and debating over that scenario. I'm not talking about blocking people that disagree with me. How can I know that they're disagreeing with me if they don't post? I'm talking about people that do worse than this, though this is precisely the start of the path to which the end is which frustrates me:
Now, you say I'm becoming the kind of poster I am trying to block? I'm constantly having to restate myself, explain, and defend myself, not just against valid insights, but against alternate realities where people continue to act as if they are experts and I'm an idiot. I'm trying to repeatedly point out that I'm having to elevate my tone to counteract one that continues to assume that somehow my opinion is less valid, then when I do so, it's somehow evidence to you that I'm worse than the people making trouble.
To make an assumption such as you have that nobody would abuse this system and block people who disagree with them is shortsighted and naive. It's not that you might, but others would. Nobody has said here that your opinoin is invalid they have countered with well though out and valid repsonses.
They are not inventing scenarios, post and thread history of these forums show that this would be abused in a terrible way, we are better to leave it in the hands of the Turbine mods.
First, I wasn't suggesting that it work off a current ignore list.
I was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Your proposal would effectively be a thread-specific, global ignore list. Significantly it would not allow the current ability to still see the ignored posts if you wish. If it did that, I would find the proposal slightly more acceptable.
Since that part might not be clear, let me restate that at creation a person would be able to add a name to a list of people prevented from posting on the suggestion. Other people don't have to decide whether a person is trolling or not. It's plain to see. That the person was doing it somewhere else is the issue. I'm not going to pick people out of the blue. I'm going to pick people that, based on my recent past posts have been posting in each thread just to say they don't like it...not give any reasons...just, a kind of "move on loser" type of post that it sounds like we've all seen before...or maybe some of the posters in here have done that. Not sure.
This is where we differ. I find nothing offensive in people disagreeing with something without providing any reason. In many cases, I can understand that they are resorting to short-hand because the reasonjs have been given hundreds of times before. Thus the "Flying mounts - never going to happen" posts are perfectly acceptable to me. In such a case it is the thread creator who is really wasting everybody's time by creating yet another thread that will rehash old arguments for the umpteenth time. If they had done even a rudimentary search, they might have realised the futility of posting.
/QUOTE] I don't monitor everyone else's posts. Someone could use it to block out a person they don't like, exactly the same way that they could keep them out of their party if they didn't want to invite them. Everyone but you is invited. Until someone else causes trouble. Then I'm not inviting them to my next party. That I would be making that call ahead of time I think is more appropriate than the alternative, which is to go back and reprimand and edit out what they don't like.[/QUOTE]
This analogy does not work. A thread is not "your party". Creating a thread is not creating a private space, and it should not be. Within the wider context of our community, everything that happens in the regular forums is a public space in which everyone can choose to participate, providing they abide by the community rules.
I don't know if you are familiar Speaker's Corner. To me creating a forum thread is like planting you soapbox there and expressing you opinion. Implicit in doing that is that you have to accept whatever the passing public may choose to say by way or eaction, which may well include heckling and disruption.
Right now, that still can happen if that person is trolling, but reputation is not a two way street. I've received several negative reputation ticks over the last couple of days for politely expressing my opinion and trying to defend myself after being baited and name-called. Do THOSE people have negative rep? Not likely, because the reputation is too high for negative reputation to be given. That's the way Turbine has set it up.
I've said it before, but I think it polices itself. Turbine is not going to "listen" to a small group of people patting themselves on the back. It's a suggestion forum. If there is a healthy discussion taking place then they're more likely to look into whatever repercussions might exist from making a change. "Tl;dr" is not part of a healthy discussion. "Turbine is never going to do that" is not part of a discussion. Shooting someone's ideas down simply by saying they don't like it is not discussing anything. Following a person around on the forums because you don't like them and making inane comments is not...
You believe that the solution is worse than the problem and I do not. We differ in that respect and I respect your opinion. I think you're wrong just like you think I'm wrong. It doesn't mean you're on the "right side". That I disagree with you does not make me part of the "right side". I know you know that, but I hope you know I know that.
Your last sentence: someone can't use the argument that I'm infringing on their free speech without accepting that even in the most broadest of cases, it's not entirely "free speech" that they're calling upon. I was making that argument because I was trying to show that you can't say I'm restricting free speech when what I'm calling is already allowable. We all accept the conditions for using the forums in the terms of use agreement. The ones that Turbine has set aside for us are indeed even more stringent than the ones set down by the government. Even at the highest level of "free speech" there are allowable restrictions. Therefore, Turbine has even stricter rules, because it is a private entity. It is allowed to do that because we accept it. We don't have a right to this service, we sign a contract. People who want to make the argument that I want to infringe on free speech are therefore assuming something that isn't there. I'm not against free speech. I want Turbine to invoke a time, place, and manner restriction on free speech. Incidentally, there are a great many parts of US law that would surprise many people which actually do put limitations on how private entities can restrict free speech. I don't believe that any would pertain in this case (and indeed, internet law is in a very early place), but as I am familiar with media law. I am simply trying to point out that someone can't use an argument against me and then prevent me from using that same argument against them. If it were "free speech" (and that's why I've been using those quotes in all those other cases) then there would still be a case for Turbine to allow the restriction of certain types. Increasingly, the internet will become either more or less permissive. I see it as becoming moreso and that's the reason of this post - I'd like to halt the permissive nature of some forms of speech - not to prevent dissention. I'm well aware that some people would use it in a way that to paraphrase your argument would be inappropriate, but I've already stated that I feel the opposite way. I would rather err on that side. Again, I respect your opinion - I simply disagree with it. I don't think I've been incorrect in my arguments. I think you have and I think I've directly addressed those places. You are free to disagree.
Absolutely, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. Manifestly we cannot all be right. Indeed, there is probably no "right" as that implies the ability to judge this using absolute, objective criteria. It is pretty clear that the applicable criteria are relative and highly subjective. The conclusion you arrive at is entirely dependent on the premises from which you start.
I was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Your proposal would effectively be a thread-specific, global ignore list. Significantly it would not allow the current ability to still see the ignored posts if you wish. If it did that, I would find the proposal slightly more acceptable.
I'm not sure what your metaphor was, but allow me to say that this isn't a bad alteration at all. I wouldn't be opposed to that. The people on that list could post but have it automatically hidden. I think there would be some that would come in, choose to look at those posts and then get a little confused because they'd wonder why the person hid those comments. I guess what it would do would promote the thing with which I'm concerned. It might also expose those people who are grossly abusing the function. Certainly a person making a nuisance of themselves might end up posting a great thing on one thread, but there would be no way of them knowing whether or not they were posting to a thread they are restricted in until after the post. I could see them throwing a fit of rage, but it then only exposes some of their previous behavior. If those people wanted themselves to be taken seriously, they'd have to repeatedly post thoughtful comments. In fact, it adds another layer of prevention. As I've said many times before, I know some would abuse the system on the other extreme and place everyone they know on ignore, but those posts would be easily spotted by Turbine as nuisances in themselves. Those getting weeded out would be easier to get rid of than individual posts. There could even be flags set up when threads had a certain (unpublished) number of people on the block list which Turbine would just remove if the effect was so transparent. In it all, the threads that are of substance, the suggestions that had merit, will have a chance against getting derailed.
I still can't understand how some people cannot simply resist posting negative nuisance comments. Real debate is one thing, but I just don't understand they compulsion and enjoyment people get out of trying to provoke people and get them upset.
I still can't understand how some people cannot simply resist posting negative nuisance comments. Real debate is one thing, but I just don't understand they compulsion and enjoyment people get out of trying to provoke people and get them upset.
Not a bad idea.
That right there is why we have the report post function, the ability to PM mods about harrassment and Turbines own moderators. We do not need an extra level of personal moderation. I dont think anyone here has tried to provoke you.
That right there is why we have the report post function, the ability to PM mods about harrassment and Turbines own moderators. We do not need an extra level of personal moderation. I dont think anyone here has tried to provoke you.
Reporting my post and getting it deleted just underlines my point. People like you scream after mummy and need authoritys to hold there hand. You have never learned to accept the opinons of others. You have never grown up.
Get yourself a gun. It makes people stop talking, you know?
People like you are the dictators of tomorow.
That you couldnt take my post funny and use it to reflect onto your pointless egosentric proposal just makes it so much clear that I was 100% correct with my statement.
I will repost this as often as possible. Just you know. And cause this is F2P there is no way of baning me permanently. You can thank your mummy ... ahm, turbine for that.
Yes, it would be a preemptive thing and not something you could do just to shut up someone or get the last word. It would only disallow a small group and not give editorial control,
So in your view, preemptively blocking someone isn't editorial control.
Reporting my post and getting it deleted just underlines my point. People like you scream after mummy and need authoritys to hold there hand. You have never learned to accept the opinons of others. You have never grown up.
Get yourself a gun. It makes people stop talking, you know?
People like you are the dictators of tomorow.
That you couldnt take my post funny and use it to reflect onto your pointless egosentric proposal just makes it so much clear that I was 100% correct with my statement.
I will repost this as often as possible. Just you know. And cause this is F2P there is no way of baning me permanently. You can thank your mummy ... ahm, turbine for that.
have a nice day
Me? I didn't do anything. I can't understand how anyone can think posting like this is okay. I'm not egocentric and everything actually proves MY point, not the other way around.
So in your view, preemptively blocking someone isn't editorial control.
I see.
I think by definition, it isn't, but I don't think that it matters how you define it anyway. I am not controlling speech, nor editing it. I am not reactively editing posts nor controlling what gets said, just who is allowed to comment based on previous interactions and it's not without precedent in society. I'm not choosing what all the rest are saying or picking which ones get seen after-the-fact. If that doesn't matter to you, then that's okay. It is the function not what you call it that i think really matters here. By the question I am led to believe you think any restrictions on speech are bad? You're still free to disagree with my suggestion or my point of view. It is interesting to me that some of the responses seem intended to compartmentalize me in order for it to be easier to be dismissive about my premise. I am to saying that is what you're doing. I am saying that as a whole, the negative posts seem weighted that way to me.
Please clarify.
Anyone could abuse this function. It would cost active moderating time from the actual forum mods to clear up the mess of others.
Yes, you may be able to control your own block lists sensibly, but imagine what happens if I start posting screenshots of people's 1v1 in the Ettens, black out their names but leave obvious hints to who is in the screenshot and accuse them of clubbing, THEN block them or their friends to post in this topic.
Acts like this could ruin someone's reputation, unless they actively report this which could take a mod days to remove/clean up.
I understand what you want and how it can be useful, but the amount of abuse and griefing this could be used for is too much..
I think by definition, it isn't, but I don't think that it matters how you define it anyway. I am not controlling speech, nor editing it. I am not reactively editing posts nor controlling what gets said, just who is allowed to comment based on previous interactions and it's not without precedent in society. I'm not choosing what all the rest are saying or picking which ones get seen after-the-fact. If that doesn't matter to you, then that's okay. It is the function not what you call it that i think really matters here. By the question I am led to believe you think any restrictions on speech are bad? You're still free to disagree with my suggestion or my point of view. It is interesting to me that some of the responses seem intended to compartmentalize me in order for it to be easier to be dismissive about my premise. I am to saying that is what you're doing. I am saying that as a whole, the negative posts seem weighted that way to me.
I find your interpretation very interesting. You contend that you are not preventing anyone from commenting, just not allowing it in your thread.
In my opinion, the flaw in your argument is that it is NOT "your thread". Just because you started it does not give you any special rights over it.
It seems but a small extension to your proposal to say that once you have commented in a thread you ought to be able to make the same sort of restrictions that you are advocating. After all, you wish to restrict those who are permitted to comment on your utterances.
I am sorry, but I find your position fatally and inherently flawed, and without any merit.
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Grand Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Ardineck
Senior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Post Master Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
