People are not fussed about what IS an abusive message, but about what can be deemed as abusive message.
That's all about it.
unfortunately, very true
re: Statement on Harassment
- Thread starter EidLeWeise
- Start date
- Status
People are not fussed about what IS an abusive message, but about what can be deemed as abusive message.
That's all about it.
unfortunately, very true
bad translation, my bad
If I get burnt fries, employees are not competent and I have a right to express my opinion.
le sigh
You have a right to express your opinion about the quality of the food and the establishment that provided the food.
You do not have a right to express a wish that the waiter and their whole family gets a terrible disease and dies.
It’s pretty straightforward to express an opinion, a negative one even, without resorting to abuse or harassment. I wouldn’t be worried about legitimate criticism being shut down as long as we all continue to behave like civilised people.
Sorry, 100% disagree that my question, even if read as sarcastic, is abusive.
This is a lot of controversy over nothing.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Lets just leave bad food out of the discussion please.
You are exaggerating, such an approach is of course out of place, but that is not what we are talking about here.
Apologies.
You have a right to express your opinion about the quality of the game and the establishment that provided the game.
You do not have a right to express a wish that the employees of the game company and their whole family gets a terrible disease and dies.
Yes, you do.
Arf wasn't talking about this when talking about abuse though. He even praised our feedback in the post.
As I already stated in my first reply to the op, what Arf said was very simple, very clear and all decent human beings should 100% agree with it.
That some felt insecure enough to challenge what it meant in terms of the forum rules is their choice but two official replies have put those insecurities to bed in this thread. All that should be left is all of us moving forward with respect because I don't see why anyone could disagree with Arf"s post on any sensible grounds.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about that. As I understand it, the gist of the conversation seems to be about what constitutes abuse vs genuine criticism - although if I've got the wrong end of the stick then please let me know.
You may 100% disagree... but it does not matter if the other one feels that your post was abusive and bans you for it
(if you do read it in a sarcastic voice, you do imply the other one is an ... well i wont use any adjectives, after all, i dont want to be banned.)
There's a tangible problem with this.
If a community manager objectively commits a "social offense", even if it is because of frontier the company, is it no longer possible to check them on this now?
There have been some keen examples of this in recent weeks which are greater than something you should politely ignore.
I think there could be valid issues of good faith here.
If a community manager objectively commits a "social offense", even if it is because of frontier the company, is it no longer possible to check them on this now?
There have been some keen examples of this in recent weeks which are greater than something you should politely ignore.
I think there could be valid issues of good faith here.
I'm 100% confident that the post in question would never result in even an infraction, let alone getting me banned. The reason I'm sure is because it breaks no rules.
I think it's best we move on.
I think the bans that have been made in the past here demonstrate that there is considerable grey area over what constitutes 'abuse'. BlackMaze was banned for his heartfelt plea to change the planet tech simply because he had the temerity to name one dev specifically - despite the hundreds of posts made here in which people refer to or address David Braben. 'Moderation' like this is arbitrary, and reflects more what the mods are tired of hearing than any set of criteria for decency that they're supposedly upholding.
Hopefully, anyone in this conversation is adult enough to know where the line is; to play the ball, not the man, as they say. But the behaviour of the mods here in the past increasingly suggests that, while you may have a clear idea of what 'abuse' looks like, their definition is considerably more fluid.
Hopefully, anyone in this conversation is adult enough to know where the line is; to play the ball, not the man, as they say. But the behaviour of the mods here in the past increasingly suggests that, while you may have a clear idea of what 'abuse' looks like, their definition is considerably more fluid.
How do you know this was the only reason he was banned?
I mean, I'm no moderator but I saw at least one other thread where he linked a video that was pretty obviously not "family suitable", which I'm sure isn't allowed as this forum maintains its content be suitable for all ages. If I'd posted that, I'd expect an infraction.
Are you certain you fully understand the facts enough that this throws Arf's post into doubt? Is it not simpler to just agree that we shouldn't abuse fdev staff?
They gave the reason: naming a dev specifically. From memory.
No, because i'll literally get banned.
- Status