re: Statement on Harassment
- Thread starter EidLeWeise
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not. The behaviour of some of the mods on this forum ably demonstrates that there is considerable grey area and overlap between 'rudeness' and 'sentiments the mods personally don't agree with and are bored of hearing'. Some of the mods on this forum have, over the last couple of years, behaved in a way which is indistinguishable from simply banning people they don't like.
Arf's post states that "posts which... accuse" will be banned. Does that include Obsidian Ant's video in which he suggests that Frontier misled players? That's an accusation, after all.
Establishing some sort of framework for where 'constructive criticism' turns into 'harmful attacks on team' mental health' wouldn't hurt.
I'd suggest that constructive criticism is:
- delivered via the correct channel: this forum, not staff members' social media accounts.
- directed at Frontier in general, not at individuals.
- focuses on the feature or bug itself, not on the people behind it.
- highlights a problem, rather than demanding a specific solution.
- assumes good intent: that is, assumes that Frontier want the best for the game and their players, and make decisions accordingly.
Those might not be the correct or complete criteria, but they're a start. I would suggest that laying a set of expectations like this out for players would reduce the grey area between 'feedback' and 'abuse' and lead to a more transparent moderation process, better feedback for Frontier, better-behaved players and less ambiguity.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Lets clarify this a little from the moderators view.
Basically posts that fell into the category refered to in Arthur's post were already being removed and given infractions (which accumulated forum infraction points).
That left the poster the possibility to wait out a tempory ban and still come back to the forum to continue posting.
This new policy goes straight to a ban, and then a possible appeal to the CM team if the user feels it to be inapproprate.
Basically posts that fell into the category refered to in Arthur's post were already being removed and given infractions (which accumulated forum infraction points).
That left the poster the possibility to wait out a tempory ban and still come back to the forum to continue posting.
This new policy goes straight to a ban, and then a possible appeal to the CM team if the user feels it to be inapproprate.
No of course not. Highly unlikely even if he posted the video on the forums himself, which he prolly didn't.
Besides, Arthur mentioned personal harassments, accusations and attacks. You prolly still can bash Frontier all you want.
That's a nice clarification, thank you.
However, Arthur's post sounds way more harsher and looks like it opens the can for a wider range of post interpretations leading to a straight out ban.
If you didnt like the potatoes would I have to eat them? Also if I paid for the potatoes? But yes its a can of worms ( was that in the potatoes? )
We all should know what harassment, personal attacks and nasty posts look like. I think we all know ?
SO MUCH THIS.
You need advice on what constitutes an abusive message?
No no - I’m on a Keto diet so trying to cut out starchy foods
We should, but we're now in an age where someone can take offence because I say that I had a really nice burger for lunch
this comparison is wrong
you should compare it to the restaurant where you ordered "La Bonnotte Potatoes" and you got burned fries instead.
the waiter says he'll bring you what you ordered in an hour but you still get burnt fries topped with ketchup to kill the taste of coal.
such a restoration deserves at least official quality control or a lawsuit in extremal case, not scaring customers
Hah yes. Think the nail's been hit here.
That and I just think some people err on the side of controversy at every opportunity so picking apart a pretty simple message to find fault in it is a good place to get that from right?
Not going to get you banned here though is it?
"scaring customers" who have been abusive towards their staff?
I think that's a fair time to "scare" someone with the threat of banning them. Take note, this is directed at those who are abusive. No one else need be scared.
You didn't do it any better either...
Did you leave out the part where you knocked the teeth from the waiters skull accidently or conveniently?
ninjaad
What if a waiter spits on me?
This is like people getting upset about first ammendment rights when Twitter bans someone. If you break house rules, you can have your right to use the service removed.
What are you rallying against here exactly?
Listen, I'm no angel; I've had some infractions here and most were probably valid, because I stepped over a line (and even if I didn't agree with it, I still listened to it and just moved on). But I've never, once, been directly abusive towards anyone here and definitely not against Fdev, no matter how many things I've fed back negatively. It's not rocket science.
Who spat on someone here?
What are you rallying against here exactly?
Listen, I'm no angel; I've had some infractions here and most were probably valid, because I stepped over a line (and even if I didn't agree with it, I still listened to it and just moved on). But I've never, once, been directly abusive towards anyone here and definitely not against Fdev, no matter how many things I've fed back negatively. It's not rocket science.
If you read that with a sarcastic voice That ^ message is abusive.
Just so you know. And just pointing out the dangers of what can be seen as abusive by some.
Edit.. please dont ban me!
Actually the Alpha showed us that what we will get is burned fries...
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Give the moderators a little credit for being able to use common sense
(Was it a Kumo Burger?)
- Status