How do you feel about post dislikes and like based "rating" system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordovan

This was just a bit of theorycrafting chat in the middle of a livestream since weighing features do exist under the hood of the new forums and we could give it a try if we wanted to, but this is not a matter of "Cordovan wants to..." But, since people want to discuss it here:

The main thing it could help address is to give the wider community an opportunity to weigh in lightly without having to commit to the stress and anxiety of defending themselves from often intense responses by a small but loud group of people with a differing opinion who consider themselves the majority. The fallout of not agreeing with the opinions of regulars can be tough sometimes. It's true that only a small percentage of players post but far more read, and this is probably the biggest reason a majority read but don't post. Many players who otherwise disagree with an idea tell us privately they don't reply due to the difficulties they would face if they tried to speak, and it can lead to people believing "players want X" when in fact it is maybe a dozen or so frequent and loud posters representing their opinion every time the topic is raised on the forums. Ideally people who enjoy the forums would be willing to listen to others without engaging in negative behavior, but we've seen too often how things actually go, both on the part of people who are more supportive of ideas and those more opposed. Instead of posting on the forums, these folks get their feedback to us elsewhere. I frequently get Twitter/Discord/Forum Private messages along the lines of, "I don't dare disagree with 'the forums' on this, but here's what I and everyone I know actually thinks:".

By adding a no-impact unlike/downvote, it gives people an additional perspective. If a post has twelve people across a six page thread insisting that "everyone" wants X but the post has 50 likes and 2000 dislikes, it could be informative, and it is not the kind of information you would get by the current way things work. As people have stated, there are of course a bunch of reasons NOT to do an up/downvote as well. I was a big opponent of the Reputation system, getting rid of it was one of my first orders of business when I took over forum management here. If anything like this was ever brought to the new forums it would have to work differently from that old system. But I don't want to simply not consider it due to the issues caused by a different and very outdated system from a decade-plus ago.

Would a different system be able to help counter the belief that six people who post a hundred times over the course of a month about an issue represent the majority? Maybe, maybe not, but it's at least worth thinking about, since nothing is actually being proposed at the moment.

---

I support these changes, as a player who feels intimidated by some of the louder voices on the forum.

It is so true that there is a minority group of loud voices on the forum. You can recognize some of these names in almost every thread. Indeed, many of them have posted in this very thread. One has to wonder where these individuals find so much free time to be constantly posting so much.

I think these people, because they are so "loud" (constantly present and posting on the forums), give off an illusion of being in the majority. I think they themselves even come to believe they are in the majority as a result. These people, by coincidence, are also some of the biggest complainers. Most of us are actually very grateful for so many of the new features and updates to the game!

I find it very off-putting and I'm sure other new players feel the same way. It would make us feel a lot more welcome in the community to be able to input our voices through a ratings, "like/dislike," or upvote/downvote system.

Against it. It only promote toxicity and hive minds/circlejerk. Look at reddit (in general). You either have "positive" hivemind reddit where negativity gets downvoted to oblivion, or the opposite kind. And the more it goes one way, the more the other side will simply leave, until they are all gone.
I'll take LOTRO reddit for obvious reasons as an example. Positive or positive leaning thread gets 90+% upvotes. Anything that is even remotely negative, including "please help" issues, or an opinion about something they dislike, even if minor and argumented will get no more than 65%.
Outfit of the day ? 99% upvote today, 97% yesterday.2 "love the community" back to back threads ? 90%.
Meanwhile : "how to disable combat music ?" (they don't like it) 67%. "I don't like Mordor" (controversial opinion right there) 70%. "Please help, LOTRO crash" 40%. I did a search of "controversial" threads : LOTRO's lag issue. The first 2 were sitting at 65-67.

On reddit you can find plenty of hivemind that goes either way. LOTRO reddit is fairly tame compared to some.

Upvotes/downvotes only promote a "like it or leave it" or "hate it or leave us" places. Neither are healthy nor interesting. And they certainly not encourage debate or discussion, they stifle it.
Case in point, posted in reddit in a thread about this proposed "feature" :

Quote:

---

I'd say yes if only to have the toxic minority realize how minor their views are.

Not everyone has the time or wants to write a lengthly argument only to be replied with "but actushually".

I'd imagine the minority of toxic posters would be easily downvoted given how outdated their povs are, which is always a plus.

---

"I'm only for it if people I disagree with are on the losing end". Literally say they'll downvote people they disagree with without offering any argumentations against it and hope they'll get downvoted enough to feel bad ?. I won't even start with the "majority" vs "minority". Remember kids, you are always part of the "silent/positive majority" (which, obviously, makes you right), and people who disagree with you are always part of the "loud/vocal/toxic minority".


That's why forums usually encourage "positive" vote system. No downvotes, only upvotes. Or emoji like in discord. That way even if what you say is controversial for most forumer (or an active group of them), you don't get removed by the mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daguest

It only promote toxicity and hive minds/circlejerk. Look at reddit (in general). You either have "positive" hivemind reddit where negativity gets downvoted to oblivion, or the opposite kind. And the more it goes one way, the more the other side will simply leave, until they are all gone.
I'll take LOTRO reddit for obvious reasons as an example. Positive or positive leaning thread gets 90+% upvotes. Anything that is even remotely negative, including "please help" issues, or an opinion about something they dislike, even if minor and argumented will get no more than 65%.
Outfit of the day ? 99% upvote today, 97% yesterday.2 "love the community" back to back threads ? 90%.
Meanwhile : "how to disable combat music ?" (they don't like it) 67%. "I don't like Mordor" (controversial opinion right there) 70%. "Please help, LOTRO crash" 40%. I did a search of "controversial" threads : LOTRO's lag issue. The first 2 were sitting at 65-67.

On reddit you can find plenty of hivemind that goes either way. LOTRO reddit is fairly tame compared to some.

Upvotes/downvotes only promote a "like it or leave it" or "hate it or leave us" places. Neither are healthy nor interesting. And they certainly not encourage debate or discussion, they stifle it.
Case in point, posted in reddit in a thread about this proposed "feature" :

"I'm only for it if people I disagree with are on the losing end". Literally say they'll downvote people they disagree with without offering any argumentations against it and hope they'll get downvoted enough to feel bad ?. I won't even start with the "majority" vs "minority". Remember kids, you are always part of the "silent/positive majority" (which, obviously, makes you right), and people who disagree with you are always part of the "loud/vocal/toxic minority".


That's why forums usually encourage "positive" vote system. No downvotes, only upvotes. Or emoji like in discord. That way even if what you say is controversial for most forumer (or an active group of them), you don't get removed by the mob.

---

Wait, you're saying it will promote "toxicity," and your example of its implementation is Reddit, where "negativity" gets "downvoted into oblivion"? You don't think negativity is toxic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurehir

You don't think negativity is toxic?

---

Negativity as in completely bonkers unreasonable rants without any sort of arguments and just nostalgia for 2007 and SoA, aka "the game is dead!" - sure, ok, that's quite silly and toxic.

Literally everything else "negative" = a player requests help annoyed by something, a player may be dissatisfied with something, a player doesn't like a feature or a region, a player doesn't like a change or a story retcon, players discuss lore, different POVs of different players clash in a debate etc etc. Sounds perfectly normal to me, and something that *may* be a valuable feedback, especially if somewhat argumented, not just screaming something incomprehensible.

Their example was spot-on and I noticed those exact examples/reaction ratios when scrolling through reddit today. That's unfortunate truth about reddit, though I do like to engage regarding certain matters like housing/the world or post screenshots or answering questions (and similar types of engagement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordovan

This was just a bit of theorycrafting chat in the middle of a livestream since weighing features do exist under the hood of the new forums and we could give it a try if we wanted to, but this is not a matter of "Cordovan wants to..." But, since people want to discuss it here:

The main thing it could help address is to give the wider community an opportunity to weigh in lightly without having to commit to the stress and anxiety of defending themselves from often intense responses by a small but loud group of people with a differing opinion who consider themselves the majority. The fallout of not agreeing with the opinions of regulars can be tough sometimes. It's true that only a small percentage of players post but far more read, and this is probably the biggest reason a majority read but don't post. Many players who otherwise disagree with an idea tell us privately they don't reply due to the difficulties they would face if they tried to speak, and it can lead to people believing "players want X" when in fact it is maybe a dozen or so frequent and loud posters representing their opinion every time the topic is raised on the forums. Ideally people who enjoy the forums would be willing to listen to others without engaging in negative behavior, but we've seen too often how things actually go, both on the part of people who are more supportive of ideas and those more opposed. Instead of posting on the forums, these folks get their feedback to us elsewhere. I frequently get Twitter/Discord/Forum Private messages along the lines of, "I don't dare disagree with 'the forums' on this, but here's what I and everyone I know actually thinks:".

By adding a no-impact unlike/downvote, it gives people an additional perspective. If a post has twelve people across a six page thread insisting that "everyone" wants X but the post has 50 likes and 2000 dislikes, it could be informative, and it is not the kind of information you would get by the current way things work. As people have stated, there are of course a bunch of reasons NOT to do an up/downvote as well. I was a big opponent of the Reputation system, getting rid of it was one of my first orders of business when I took over forum management here. If anything like this was ever brought to the new forums it would have to work differently from that old system. But I don't want to simply not consider it due to the issues caused by a different and very outdated system from a decade-plus ago.

Would a different system be able to help counter the belief that six people who post a hundred times over the course of a month about an issue represent the majority? Maybe, maybe not, but it's at least worth thinking about, since nothing is actually being proposed at the moment.

---

There are two problems with this kind of system, not that I don't advocate for a better system in general however.

1. Well known players on the forums/ingame generally will have people who will spam dislike their posts and/or spam like their posts regardless of the content of the post itself - the same as any person could simply ask their friends, and kinmates to like their post or dislike anothers posts, it is still not true representation of the community's feelings.

2. When it comes to making decisions surrounding class balance, and taking advice, there are definitely people who are more knowledgeable and more experienced than others, this does not then mean that anybody elses opinion is irrelevant or should be discounted, but when developers are not necessarily engaging with the playerbase at every step of the design process (which of course would be an arduous task and rather unrealistic), it is hard to know who developers are listening to, and where they are getting that feedback, especially as more and more it seems to be being conducted off the official forums, and to that end I say, either make an official discord server, (and take a leaf out of Runescape's book or another hugely successful official game-discord), or be transparent about where feedback is being given, and how everyone can do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurehir

Wait, you're saying it will promote "toxicity," and your example of its implementation is Reddit, where "negativity" gets "downvoted into oblivion"? You don't think negativity is toxic?

---

I mentioned that Reddit have negative and positive hiveminds. My argument is that both "positive" and "negative" only places are toxic cesspool. Shutting down people who disagree with you is toxic.


Sorry to break it to you but forced positivity by removing any negativity, no matter how constructive or as right it can be, doesn't make for a happy place.

This is doubly true when it can easily be abused by group of people who will downvote someone they don't like simply because they don't like the person.

I wouldn't mind a rating system. The benefit is that it would give a voice to the hundreds (thousands?) of people who lurk forums but don't feel comfortable posting. The downside is obviously if someone posts something that one persistent person feels strongly about they can easily go to a large community Discord like Ghyniverse and rile up a group to come out and down or upvote without even thinking..making certain posts seem either more or less valid than they really are. I could see this happening with anything related to PvMP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strider5548

I wouldn't mind a rating system. The benefit is that it would give a voice to the hundreds (thousands?) of people who lurk forums but don't feel comfortable posting. The downside is obviously if someone posts something that one persistent person feels strongly about they can easily go to a large community Discord like Ghyniverse and rile up a group to come out and down or upvote without even thinking..making certain posts seem either more or less valid than they really are. I could see this happening with anything related to PvMP.

---

There are more problems with a rating system than that. On a personal side, your post is being judged, whether fairly or not. And it takes a lot of courage and a thick skin to lay your own thoughts out there and accept the feedback. Thumbs up can be encouraging, but thumbs down will make you run. You really have to feel strongly about something if you are not a regular poster on the forums to want to make your own opinion known because you're trying to break into an established social clique of regulars who have 1,000+ posts and can practically read each other's minds. This thread is a wonderful example of those strong feelings, where people that rarely post are making their opinions known on the topic. And I for one, appreciate that.

But there are as many voices for as for against. Thumbs are like waves that ebb and flow, and they'll bowl you over when they get too big in either direction. How many thumbs down will make you run away? How many thumbs up will make you think your own garbage is pretty good?

Simple survey question: Do you like riding stable elks with giant horns in a forest of trees with low-hanging branches? Y/N

I understand the desire to make the forums more useful in giving accurate feedback. Most players don’t come to the forums often, if at all. Certainly the players who are enjoying the game and encountering no real difficulties are unlikely to show up. And those same people will therefore likely not be heard if decisions are made solely on forum feedback.

I don’t know if a thumbs up/thumbs down system would encourage more folks to participate, though. It might in some cases allow an idea’s popularity to be more accurately judged. But it might also end up scaring off those who might want to post. Another poster mentioned sending out surveys — perhaps a link to a survey on whatever changes are being considered could be put on the log-in screen, or the character selection screen. I think those might be more effective if the goal is broader and more accurate feedback.

I find likes useful when you agree with the post, have nothing constructive to add and commenting "I agree" seems like waste of time. The ability to comment with various emoji like in Discord also not bad IMO.
I don't like rating systems based on likes and dislikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurehir

I support these changes, as a player who feels intimidated by some of the louder voices on the forum.

It is so true that there is a minority group of loud voices on the forum. You can recognize some of these names in almost every thread. Indeed, many of them have posted in this very thread. One has to wonder where these individuals find so much free time to be constantly posting so much.

I think these people, because they are so "loud" (constantly present and posting on the forums), give off an illusion of being in the majority. I think they themselves even come to believe they are in the majority as a result. These people, by coincidence, are also some of the biggest complainers. Most of us are actually very grateful for so many of the new features and updates to the game!

I find it very off-putting and I'm sure other new players feel the same way. It would make us feel a lot more welcome in the community to be able to input our voices through a ratings, "like/dislike," or upvote/downvote system.

---

There was a thread about paying for some additional band width as an individual option. Did you feel unwelcomed in that thread? For me it seemed you'd be happy to reward SSG even more than you do already to raise yourself up out of the mire of performance. Leaving us to carry on suffering. Perhaps the reason is that other forum users have analysed the proverbial out of both the technical and business reasons why it might be unattainable. We should be standing together on the Picket Line so all benefit. Even those who aren't sufficiently advanced in the game to see many of the problems yet and avidly support SSG, and are in for a shock when they do.

What would have made a difference to that discussion would be a Blue input (from the guy who'd have to implement it) to tell us if this was even technically possible and another from the business side saying if it could be paid for. We are left to squabble.

As ever it's SSG in a Daybreak "straight jacket" - no comment. At best some spin for enough to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurehir

Wait, you're saying it will promote "toxicity," and your example of its implementation is Reddit, where "negativity" gets "downvoted into oblivion"? You don't think negativity is toxic?

---

There is nothing particularly toxic about a poster being negative with an opinion. Outright trolling, just being negative or mean for no reason, is toxic yes, but negativity, in general, where a player may be expressing that they dislike something about the game isn't.

Some players really like x in the game (positive feedback), some don't (negative feedback). Differing opinions, that's all. Neither is toxicity, while they are simply opinions. It's when a player comes in and trashes the opinion of another it turns to toxicity, whether or not the original opinion was a negative or positive one.

Players should feel comfortable with coming to the game forum and expressing how much they love a certain function in the game. Likewise, players should feel comfortable coming to the game forums to express how much they dislike a certain function in the game. Neither should be shot down, called names, ridiculed or be subjected to shut down tactics.

All the chatter about post count in here is one such tactic. It doesn't matter whether a poster has 5 posts under their name or 5 thousand. I have 15K posts, over 10+ years, the vast majority of which are from my early years in the game, where I defended the game to the hilt, and offered help to others. So much so that my name got dragged around a few external sites by players that either left these boards or got banned for their more negative opinions. My experience as a "positive" poster here didn't result in anything great. I don't agree with shutting down debate as long as it's civil. Name-calling and plain mean interactions aside.

Labelling someone as "toxic" just because they have something negative to say about something isn't right in my book. What's worse is when a player actually does like something, but they make suggestions for improvement, which is then seen as a complaint, toxicity or something else negative. It happens all time here on these boards.

OKAY...

Let us take this thread as an example. By and large it has been very civil and has amassed at least half a dozen different solid viewpoints on this very subject. So,

Do we really need a system that means just because you disagree with someone else' view - you would therefore feel obliged to downgrade them?? And on the flip side of that, just because someone has the same opinion as you - you upgrade them?

That is where madness lies.

We can have decent conversations without the petty need to boost or demoralise someone's ego. If you don't like what they say, then write it in a post like we have done in this thread. No need to increase the pool of anonymous keyboard warriors.

Also, it would stifle the conversation massively. Some people would not post their feelings for fear of losing a rating. I can see why it would work for Cordovan because it means we are moderating the forums for him but at such a huge cost to our already limited freedom of speech when it comes to game matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

OKAY...

Let us take this thread as an example. By and large it has been very civil and has amassed at least half a dozen different solid viewpoints on this very subject. So,

Do we really need a system that means just because you disagree with someone else' view - you would therefore feel obliged to downgrade them?? And on the flip side of that, just because someone has the same opinion as you - you upgrade them?

That is where madness lies.

We can have decent conversations without the petty need to boost or demoralise someone's ego. If you don't like what they say, then write it in a post like we have done in this thread. No need to increase the pool of anonymous keyboard warriors.

Also, it would stifle the conversation massively. Some people would not post their feelings for fear of losing a rating. I can see why it would work for Cordovan because it means we are moderating the forums for him but at such a huge cost to our already limited freedom of speech when it comes to game matters.

---

I'm totally on board with every part of this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

OKAY...

Let us take this thread as an example. By and large it has been very civil and has amassed at least half a dozen different solid viewpoints on this very subject. So,

Do we really need a system that means just because you disagree with someone else' view - you would therefore feel obliged to downgrade them?? And on the flip side of that, just because someone has the same opinion as you - you upgrade them?

That is where madness lies.

We can have decent conversations without the petty need to boost or demoralise someone's ego. If you don't like what they say, then write it in a post like we have done in this thread. No need to increase the pool of anonymous keyboard warriors.

Also, it would stifle the conversation massively. Some people would not post their feelings for fear of losing a rating. I can see why it would work for Cordovan because it means we are moderating the forums for him but at such a huge cost to our already limited freedom of speech when it comes to game matters.

---

Sorry but this thread solves nothing and is a prime example of what's wrong with this forum.
Did you not hear/ read that a large group of players signal (as they have done so often on this very mb) that they dont dare to post here, that they feel intimidated
or just simply dislike the extreme toxicity of these mbs?

Do you think this thread solved that or do you just not care?

If people who feel too intimidated to post here, might add to a discussion by upvoting (still dont support downvoting for reasons I described) it might
give a hint how people think about certain issues. A LOT better than having to wade through the endless posts of the same tiny group
of toxic posters...day in day out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoRonRon

There was a thread about paying for some additional band width as an individual option. Did you feel unwelcomed in that thread? For me it seemed you'd be happy to reward SSG even more than you do already to raise yourself up out of the mire of performance. Leaving us to carry on suffering. Perhaps the reason is that other forum users have analysed the proverbial out of both the technical and business reasons why it might be unattainable. We should be standing together on the Picket Line so all benefit. Even those who aren't sufficiently advanced in the game to see many of the problems yet and avidly support SSG, and are in for a shock when they do.

What would have made a difference to that discussion would be a Blue input (from the guy who'd have to implement it) to tell us if this was even technically possible and another from the business side saying if it could be paid for. We are left to squabble.

As ever it's SSG in a Daybreak "straight jacket" - no comment. At best some spin for enough to believe.

---

What Aurehir posted was a thoughtful contribution about why many folks don’t post here often. Your reply was a perfect demonstration of the vituperative bile and bitterness that keeps many posters away. If SSG really wants these forums to be more useful, they need to curb behavior like yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varmintkiller

What Aurehir posted was a thoughtful contribution about why many folks don’t post here often. Your reply was a perfect demonstration of the vituperative bile and bitterness that keeps many posters away. If SSG really wants these forums to be more useful, they need to curb behavior like yours.

---

There was literally nothing wrong with what he said?

It is well within our rights as paying customers to call out bad customer service publicly, and it is well within your right as a paying customer to also disagree - but "curbing behaviour like yours", again, if they were actually toxic or trolling, sure, but they aren't, so no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varmintkiller

What Aurehir posted was a thoughtful contribution about why many folks don’t post here often. Your reply was a perfect demonstration of the vituperative bile and bitterness that keeps many posters away. If SSG really wants these forums to be more useful, they need to curb behavior like yours.

---

/signed
Up and down votes wont solve this. Moderation might.
Being told that because you support a game, you contribute to the suffering of others or you are just a noob who
doesnt understand the game enough, is a prime example of silencing people and should NOT be allowed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fadil

Being told that because you support a game, you contribute to the suffering of others or you are just a noob who
doesnt understand the game enough, is a prime example of silencing people and should NOT be allowed here.

---

That's not what they said. What it said was: We should all stand on the frontline equally (opinion). I disagree with the idea that players willing to pay even more (than we already pay - many of us do pay for the game in various forms) should receive a better bandwidth than others. (opinion, disagreement). The real change would be an answer from SSG. (suggestion) Etc. Nowhere, in the quoted post, I can see "silencing" and "you are just a noob!" assumptions (they did mentioned "even those not yet advanced in the game" but it was end of post and no indication it refferered specifically to the OP, just a comment, that you comment on something doesn't mean each of your sentence is always directed at the OP). The OP could keep posting, there is literally nothing stopping them. Plus, it's true such an idea could contribute to some suffering of others who don't wanna pay extra = if you give somebody priority treatment, then it's natural you would be taking some "bandwidth" from others in such a model. I don't see how pointing that out is bad? It's like... a fact? a circumstance? a natural consequence?

How is any of that toxic again? And deserving of a ban or warning etc? Could you define this toxic for me in a way that I know how to avoid it and it's clear to me what is toxic and what isn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

That's not what they said. What it said was: We should all stand on the frontline equally (opinion).

---

That is literally what he said: "For me it seemed you'd be happy to reward SSG even more than you do already to raise yourself up out of the mire of performance. Leaving us to carry on suffering".

There is no evidence the poster in question supports this idea, I even went to the thread in question to see if the poster had posted
something like that and he/ she didnt.
Its therefor complete nonsense aimed at silencing someone/ attacking someone's opinion.
And it doesnt in any way, shape or form address the actual points the poster posted.

Then there's this about: "Even those who aren't sufficiently advanced in the game to see many of the problems yet and avidly support SSG, and are in for a shock when they do.".
Thats a nice way to suggest someone is a noob, though he picks his words more careful than that.

The post in question is a prime example how people on this mb are getting silenced.

Its irrelevant, it doesnt address any of the issues the original poster posted and its a further continuation of the idea
only negative opinions are allowed here.

The majority of people on this platform isn't "trolls". An up/downvote system will prevent bad posts as it generally will get downvoted to oblivion. And if a post gets tons of upvotes its probably because a lot of people find it good.

Good initiative to modernize the forum, you shouldn't have to write a post to dislike/like something, an up/downvote system fixes this. I'm all in favor of this. And it might breath some life into the forums again and make it more interesting.

It sounds like the people who don't want it are afraid of getting downvoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

That's not what they said. What it said was: We should all stand on the frontline equally (opinion). I disagree with the idea that players willing to pay even more (than we already pay - many of us do pay for the game in various forms) should receive a better bandwidth than others. (opinion, disagreement). The real change would be an answer from SSG. (suggestion) Etc. Nowhere, in the quoted post, I can see "silencing" and "you are just a noob!" assumptions (they did mentioned "even those not yet advanced in the game" but it was end of post and no indication it refferered specifically to the OP, just a comment, that you comment on something doesn't mean each of your sentence is always directed at the OP). The OP could keep posting, there is literally nothing stopping them. Plus, it's true such an idea could contribute to some suffering of others who don't wanna pay extra = if you give somebody priority treatment, then it's natural you would be taking some "bandwidth" from others in such a model. I don't see how pointing that out is bad? It's like... a fact? a circumstance? a natural consequence?

How is any of that toxic again? And deserving of a ban or warning etc? Could you define this toxic for me in a way that I know how to avoid it and it's clear to me what is toxic and what isn't?

---

How about this: what if, instead of answering you or posting about the original topic at all, I brought up some unrelated controversial opinion and claimed, without evidence, you would support it? And then said that your support of that thing made the rest of us suffer. And then topped it off by saying explicitly that people who support SSG are just too inexperienced to know better … in other words, “noobs”.

Posts like that are part of the problem. Posts that excuse or support that behavior are another part of the problem. And this is coming from people who have thousands and thousands of posts here.

I don’t know if you’ll get it. It’s not really important that you do. But SSG should understand that allowing this sort of behavior to continue will mean these forums will continue to offer only a very narrow and slanted point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fadil

That is literally what he said: "For me it seemed you'd be happy to reward SSG even more than you do already to raise yourself up out of the mire of performance. Leaving us to carry on suffering".

There is no evidence the poster in question supports this idea, I even went to the thread in question to see if the poster had posted
something like that and he/ she didnt.
Its therefor complete nonsense aimed at silencing someone/ attacking someone's opinion.
And it doesnt in any way, shape or form address the actual points the poster posted.

Then there's this about: "Even those who aren't sufficiently advanced in the game to see many of the problems yet and avidly support SSG, and are in for a shock when they do.".
Thats a nice way to suggest someone is a noob, though he picks his words more careful than that.

The post in question is a prime example how people on this mb are getting silenced.

Its irrelevant, it doesnt address any of the issues the original poster posted and its a further continuation of the idea
only negative opinions are allowed here.

---

You're being completely ingenuine on this, sorry. So I went to this thread now too, and this is literally what OP posted "What if SSG offered a premium bandwidth connection option with little to no lag? This could be available for purchase through the LOTRO Store or via subscription. That way, players who care enough about lag would immediately be able enjoy a game with minimal lag, and we would be able to provide SSG with the resources they need to fix the lag problem for good."

Again, this is all relevant then: their suggestion in practice would give bandwidth priority to some chosen ones by taking away from all others and the poster outright suggested this so they support this idea. Checked. They did posted something like that. Checked. It does address the point of this thread because the OP asked this poster whether they felt unwelcome under this other thread and why, since nothing really happened there other than people just disagreeing, pointing out some flaws of the idea etc, but that alone isn't what should be silenced. That's what made the post relevant to the discussion here - his question and description of the situation, since the issue of players being unwelcome is being discussed here. Relevant. Checked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fadil

Then there's this about: "Even those who aren't sufficiently advanced in the game to see many of the problems yet and avidly support SSG, and are in for a shock when they do.".
Thats a nice way to suggest someone is a noob, though he picks his words more careful than that.

---

Or much imagination maybe? Why always view everything as hostile? Why be paranoid at every step of the way? Why? There is nothing to indicate this intention at all. They might as well be throwing in a genuine commentary at the end of their post referring to newer players who haven't reached cap yet and may not yet be fully aware of some the lag issues to be experienced at cap where it's particularly harmful. The end. It's you who chooses to attribute some perceived, conspiracy "thinly, carefully disguised attack, ah, they're a sneaky one!" 80% chance it wasn't the poster's intention at all and it wasn't even directed at the OP but they genuinely meant hypothetical newbies not yet advanced far in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varmintkiller

How about this: what if, instead of answering you or posting about the original topic at all, I brought up some unrelated controversial opinion and claimed, without evidence, you would support it? And then said that your support of that thing made the rest of us suffer. And then topped it off by saying explicitly that people who support SSG are just too inexperienced to know better … in other words, “noobs”.

Posts like that are part of the problem. Posts that excuse or support that behavior are another part of the problem. And this is coming from people who have thousands and thousands of posts here.

I don’t know if you’ll get it. It’s not really important that you do. But SSG should understand that allowing this sort of behavior to continue will mean these forums will continue to offer only a very narrow and slanted point of view.

---

You want to lecture me, OK. Then analyze the situation carefully before you do, because as said above, I went to check the OP's thread again (his suggested idea) and the comment in question under this thread. Nothing of what you said is true. The comment under this thread referred to that other thread and described the situation from this another thread, pretty much how it happened, and he did that as a response to the exact user who opened up this other thread (with the question whether they felt unwelcome there and why and describing the situation from the thread, which again, was perfectly ok, on point, and didn't have anything outright toxic).

I find it difficult to believe people are really intimidated about posting on these forums. Just looking at the "Suggestions forum", the vast majority of suggestions have ZERO replies, positive, negative, anything at all. Would it really be intimidating to post in support of something that has had NO feedback at all? And is dissenting feed-back automatically a call for "Oh they are just trolling" or "Hating on me"? I can't imagine what people would feel if they visited the WoW or FF14 forums that have a "like" only system and the General Discussion forums for both of those game are completely overrun with actual trolls and little to no moderation of any kind. Those are quite clearly dumpster fires of forums.

But some disagreement over opinion or an idea is suddenly trolling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

You're being completely ingenuine on this, sorry.

---

I missed that post and I now see it. I thought this was about another thread and checked the wrong thread.

I still stand by what I said though: its disgusting to bring up someone's position in a completely different thread, about a completely different subject, in this thread
when all someone posts is that she/ he finds these mbs intimidating.

OP posted she/ he finds the mbs intimidating and that a few very loud voices intimidate others.
OP is 100% correct, as this thread shows.

Unless you think its fair game to bring up your completely unrelated posts about completely unrelated subjects, here to make my point?