re: Statement on Harassment

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Red Anders

Red Anders
Comandante said:
What? It was TJ!

What? Wait a minute - NO DAMN COPPER'S TAKING ME ALIV---

<DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA>
Click to expand...
You are Big Vern and I claim my five pounds :D

big_vern.jpg
 
Last edited:

Ted Striker

Ted Striker
Ydiss said:
prime candidate for me was the recommended specs devable for EDO, which I feel was very, very misleading; it wasn't a lie though, it was just incorrect.
Click to expand...
That I feel was a lie. They said something untrue and it enticed players like me to go ahead and purchase the expansion. I'm bitter about that and will probably remain so. I bought the expansion in good faith assuming that statement was correct, both that statement and the one about performance will be similar to Horizons.

But again, you know what they say about assuming...you'd think at my age I'd have learned that lesson by now.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Ydiss said:
Sorry, yes you're right; it's a change to the rules. I wrote that badly and so what I said wasn't factually correct. I'll go edit it now.

I meant the fact that the act itself (being abusive) was already covered by the rules. As in, it's not like it was tolerated and now it suddenly isn't. The way it's handled has changed and I thought that was clear from Arf's post. That said, if all the OP and you wanted was clarification on that, you got it. We've since had the offshoot discussion that no one apparently knows what being abusive constitutes, several years after they've been using the forums with those same rules being present.

I think it's disingenuous to question that now. Just because, suddenly, it's a direct ban. I'd have thought being decent to others was motivation enough to learn how that can be achieved without the need to use Arf's post as the catalyst for this sudden desire for that knowledge. If the forum rules aren't clear, by all means let's get a big list of all the possible things someone could possible do to be abusive, if someone needs it (not that it could ever possibly cover all potential examples and so will always have the caveat that you need to just be mature). But why now?

Just not buying it as genuine, sorry.

The fact this change in the rules was deemed necessary is sad. Do you not agree?
Click to expand...

It's harsher and removes the second chances.
Until now, one could step out of the line, maybe more than once, accumulate points, get temporary bans, then do the time cool himself out and post again.
Now it's an outright permanently ban

And yes, it is sad it got here... but... Steam reviews for the last 30days are down to 23%

And no, 7 weeks after launch i still cannot dual-log my 2 preordered EDO accounts.
There is a chance i might be able to do it after the fabled Autumn launch, but in the meantime my preorder is like the Arx i spent on Carrier Cosmetics... useless
 

[Diplomacy] Carnegie

[Diplomacy] Carnegie
Ted Striker said:
That I feel was a lie. They said something untrue and it enticed players like me to go ahead and purchase the expansion. I'm bitter about that and will probably remain so. I bought the expansion in good faith assuming that statement was correct, both that statement and the one about performance will be similar to Horizons.

But again, you know what they say about assuming...you'd think at my age I'd have learned that lesson by now.
Click to expand...
That's one of those fuzzy ones for me.
It was probably true (or they expected it to be true) at the point where they announced it.

They could have done a much better job with announcing that it turned out not to be accurate - apology, refund for pre-orders, that kind of thing.
 

Ted Striker

Ted Striker
[Diplomacy] Carnegie said:
That's one of those fuzzy ones for me.
It was probably true (or they expected it to be true) at the point where they announced it.

They could have done a much better job with announcing that it turned out not to be accurate - apology, refund for pre-orders, that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
Any other statement like that that wound up untrue wouldn't bother me so much, like if they say a crucial patch is coming on a certain date but it gets pushed back.

But when it separates me from my money I get upset. When a statement is meant to ease concerns, broaden a product's appeal and get more people to make a purchase, and that statement later winds up untrue, I get upset.
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
Ted Striker said:
That I feel was a lie. They said something untrue and it enticed players like me to go ahead and purchase the expansion. I'm bitter about that and will probably remain so. I bought the expansion in good faith assuming that statement was correct, both that statement and the one about performance will be similar to Horizons.

But again, you know what they say about assuming...you'd think at my age I'd have learned that lesson by now.
Click to expand...
We can't really prove it was a lie, because it's extremely subjective. I personally think they were mistaken.

But, assuming it was a lie, is it right to then @ a member of staff and call them a liar?

Again, not that any of this is likely about such trivial issues. Do you really think Arf made that post and changed the rules because someone at Fdev got called a liar?
 

zimms

zimms
Ydiss said:
[...] Considering the fact that we all are allowed to participate here on the strict condition that we abide by those rules, suddenly calling for specifics now seems very disingenous, if I'm being suspicious. [...]
Click to expand...

Why? Looks like the punishment just got changed from a temporal one to a permanent one. Not too crazy that people are now asking for clarification on vague statements.

Ydiss said:
[...]
I'm dismissing that controversy and I feel that it's coming from a place that just enjoys controversy.
[...]
Click to expand...

What controversy? I wouldn't call it that. And you think the Lave Radio crew fits that description? (Never mind, you excluded the OP).

Why not ignore the ones you think are being disingenuous and continue the conversation with the rest? It's become almost impossible to have grown up discussions around here. And that's also why I'm out of this thread. I have nothing to "win" here and sooner or later I'd only get told I don't know what abuse means or that I even condone it.
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
zimms said:
Why? Looks like the punishment just got changed from a temporal one to a permanent one. Not too crazy that people are now asking for clarification on vague statements.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was crazy, I said it wasn't genuine.

The rules:

"The forums do not permit any threads, posts, messages or content that is used to flame, troll, bait, harass or otherwise personally attack other forum users, individuals, Frontier Staff or Frontier Volunteer Moderators. Any discussion should always be directed at the content and not a person.
You must not link to any content outside of the forums designed to harass, or personally attack others."

I don't see how that is in any way ambiguous and if you genuinely need that to be explained further then I think that it doesn't matter how much detail you get, you could always cite some other example that isn't included. It's unreasonable to demand more detail than that on an internet forum. That is crystal clear. Just because breaking that bolded part of the rule now leads to a permanent ban, that shouldn't be cause to worry you in the slightest, should it? There's no ambiguity about "don't attack someone personally". You know not to attack someone personally. You know what it means. You didn't suddenly forget that just because it now results in a permanent ban.

Most people here probably didn't even know attacking someone resulted in a temporary ban until now. But suddenly they now need to have that line drawn for them? It can't possibly be for genuine reasons. It's, at best, demanding a line to push up against or, at worst, just using Arf's post to have another jab at Fdev when the whole purpose of that post is because they've had personal attacks. I do not believe everyone just suddenly got the urge to safeguard their future as a member of the forums on this basis, it's just so obviously not true. And even if it was true... seriously? They were fine being unclear about this rule on the basis of just being nice to others, for several years, but now they might get punished with a ban they now need to know what it means to be abusive? Are they really wanting to be that person?

I go back again the point no one else is making here: It's a shame that this was even necessary and I do not think it warranted finer debate about "but how do I avoid attacking someone????" as if the takeaway from that post is that we all suddenly need a huge, exhaustive list of "things that constitute attacking someone". I'd say that's dressing this up in a light that's entirely inappropriate.

Only people who willfully attack others need be concerned about getting a permanent ban for it. And if that happens due to their ignorance of what "attacking personally" or "causing harm" means, they likely deserve the ban they'll maybe get for doing it; it's not anyone else's responsibility for someone to behave in a mature and considerate way.
 
Last edited:

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
d8veh said:
Let's face it, so much has already been done to cause loyal customers and long-time players to no longer want to play, that banning a few more for getting too emotional in their complaints won't make much difference. If you get banned, use it as an excuse to start playing something else. Remember, it's only a game! There are lots of other ones and lots of other forums where you can have all the same fun.

Personally, I don't think this is the time for FD to drive deeper wedges between themselves and their paying customers. People are getting emotional and should be given some tolerance to vent off steam. A few hurty words never hurt anyone, but these customers are the bread and butter of FD.

I think it would have been better if they created a thread called "slag off the devs" where you would be allowed to call them names and rank them in the list of the worst people in the world, etc, just for the purposes of venting off. Better still, like that old internet routine where you could punch a politician or celeb, they could make a mini game where the devs are all named NPCs that you can blow up, squish them with your ship, shoot them, push them off a cliff, etc. At least that would keep people playing while they sort out the issues. It would be great to see how creative players are to bring about their favourite dev's most dastardly death using the in-game resources. That would have been a much better solution than clamping down on what the players can post.
Click to expand...
It is better to create a specific place for people to insult and harass others rather than requesting grown men to act their age and not go after individuals because their space game made them angry?

Really?

Ok...
 

Ted Striker

Ted Striker
Ydiss said:
We can't really prove it was a lie, because it's extremely subjective. I personally think they were mistaken.

But, assuming it was a lie, is it right to then @ a member of staff and call them a liar?

Again, not that any of this is likely about such trivial issues. Do you really think Arf made that post and changed the rules because someone at Fdev got called a liar?
Click to expand...
No it's not right to say that. It's not bannable or anything but it's not constructive. It's really just immature people venting when they react like that.

And no there must have been some pretty serious messages to change the rules. This isn't about calling people liars. This is probably threats and serious harassment, from immature idiots. The internet is loaded with them.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom