I grow weary from all the negativity.

[Minquinn]

Ut oh, you realize you're now going to be referred to as "fanboi" and an apologist right?

He won't be. He's well respected around here. Most of us here know him quite well from the forums and I can easily say the following about him:

1. He speaks his mind and he is honest in every post. post. I respect that.
2. He is willing to give straight answers in response to peoples questions
3. He's a veteran player with lots of knowledge
4. He doesn't spend his time on the forums defending one side or the other unless the demand are ludicrous

There's many others but honestly I think he's one of the better posters on this forum.

I wish that I could easily control my emotions like he has always done on this forum.

So no no one is going to be name calling him. In fact I bet you see more posts like this one. ($5 or Lunch?)

[Eartholloth]

He won't be. He's well respected around here. Most of us here know him quite well from the forums and I can easily say the following about him:

1. He speaks his mind and he is honest in every post. post. I respect that.
2. He is willing to give straight answers in response to peoples questions
3. He's a veteran player with lots of knowledge
4. He doesn't spend his time on the forums defending one side or the other unless the demand are ludicrous

There's many others but honestly I think he's one of the better posters on this forum.

I wish that I could easily control my emotions like he has always done on this forum.

So no no one is going to be name calling him. In fact I bet you see more posts like this one. ($5 or Lunch?)

What he said went right over your head...

[hisoka-thorongil]

This is one of my favorite claims. Primarily because it is incredibly easy to verify. One need only look at the forums and see that every post is pure praise and love expressed for all we do. The clear absence of any negative posts, any posts that suggest anyone is the least bit unhappy and that everything is utterly flawless proves this comment to be true.

Considering that some of my posts used to be removed based on sentiments you deny quelling is rather laughable. I guess me pointing that out in another thread has kept the forum gods hesitant to ban me,

BTW, Sapience, where may one find the list of ban lengths pertaining to the number of infractions? I was once banned for 3 months, for whatever reason (my sarcasm, unlike yours, warrants mega ban time, apparently) and I was never able to see the said list so that I could see when my ban would be lifted.

[NukeTheLag]

I don't think anyone can claim that there is absolute censorship of posts critical of Turbine.

However, there is a sense that the threshold for when a post gets censored is not consistently applied. Things that are considered trolling when critical of Turbine are not considered so when someone defends Turbine and so forth. In other words, people can accept that the strike zone can vary from umpire to umpire. The problem arises when the strike zone varies depending on who is at bat. That is the issue.

1) Just to take my own pet peeve. There are any number of posts where the OP wants to address the lag issue. As surely as the night follows the day, some fanboy will put up some post that accuses the OP of being stupid,etc. in so many words. These are never censored, no infractions seem to result, etc. Yet these fanboy posts cannot possibly considered as contributing anything constructive to the conversation.

2) On top of this, we have the Community Manager, who is supposed to set the standard engaging in the following:

Lol, Sapience, you know where people will take *that* answer!

Yes I do. The irony though is in where people won't take it.

Here we have a vulgarism. Am I offended? No. But is there any doubt if a similar comment had been made criticizing rather than defending Turbine, it would have resulted in infraction/censorship? Yet, not only was it not removed, etc., but moderator himself joined in the colloquy.

What I see as the REAL issue, is laziness. . . .

This is namecalling, pure and simple. Yet somehow this isn’t “behavior . . . that causes grief or alarm to other players.”

------------------
Brief Digression:

Also who does this?

- “Waiter, what’s the special today?”
- “I’m really tired of people’s laziness, the special is on the menu and the sign by the door as you came in. Why are you asking me what the special is?”

-“Librarian, where is this book?”
-“Why are you too lazy to look in the card catalogue?”

Really, the idea that because information is available elsewhere that it still shouldn’t be provided is a bit ridiculous. That’s sorta, like . . . Sapience’s job.
------------------

But even indulging this view, there’s certainly no reason to namecall. Especially when namecalling is a violation of the CoC. Or at least it is when the month ends in “Y” or Mickey Mouse’s hand is on the “11” or some other criterion that couldn’t possibly be based on whether or not the namecaller is critical of Turbine.

But it gets better:

Sometimes it's really difficult to separate out the negativity from the response, especially when you observe a dev doing something **really** stupid.

No idea what the rest of your post says. I stopped reading right there. For very obvious reasons.

I defy anyone to explain how calling people lazy is acceptable, but calling people stupid isn’t. Aside from basic commonsense and fairness, there is no possible interpretation of the CoC which could lead one to believe that “stupid” is trolling, but “lazy” is not.

And keep in mind, this is just the highlight reel of the last couple of weeks.

The point is there is absolutely nothing about the text of the CoC or the course of dealing in how Turbine applies the CoC that could possibly give a reasonable person notice of what is or is not permissible on these forums. Unless, of course, one notices the pattern that people who criticize Turbine are more likely to get the axe then those who support them But then, that would be a “conspiracy theory.”


3) To add to this, after infractions/censorship occur, people try to communicate and ask why the particular post in question was a violation of the CoC. And no, I'm not talking about blatantly obvious violations. Rather where there seemingly is no violation, and so, at best, the reason that there might be a violation is subtle. Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask that there be some explanation for reasons of both basic fairness as well as educating people on what the CoC actually means. Instead we get these Kafkaesque infractions/censorship with no explanations. If the goal was to legitimately enforce the CoC, such communications would be forthcoming. If, however, the so-called CoC is simply a pretext to censor criticism, then such communications would be irrelevant. So what does the evidence suggest is really going on here?

It hard not to suspect that the CoC is not really the driving issue. Rather, the real issue is that someone has posted something critical of Turbine, Sapience, etc. and any alleged CoC violation is simply a pretext to shut down dissenting voices.

As has been said before on these forums, when it comes to customer service, reality is the perception. Right now the perception, (and frankly, the reality), is that the CoC is not enforced in a viewpoint-neutral manner. That whether one supports or criticizes things is a factor in whether or not there should be censorship/infractions/bans, etc.

So does Turbine censor ALL criticism? No. But all things being equal, criticism is more likely to trigger censorship.

[Sapience]

Here we have a vulgarism. Am I offended? No. But is there any doubt if a similar comment had been made criticizing rather than defending Turbine, it would have resulted in infraction/censorship? Yet, not only was it not removed, etc., but moderator himself joined in the colloquy.

I went past most of the twisting of things and settled on this one as I find it most interesting. Vulgarism? In what way and why would anyone be offended. Unless, they're looking to twist something into something else.

in context, the comment, "The irony though is in where people won't take it." was a response to someone saying "you know where they'll take that statement". The statement in question being my comment about announcing pre-orders for expansions a few years down the road. The supposition of the person asking if I knew where people would take that would be that people would claim I just pre-announced several years worth of expansions and 'take it' and run, when what I was really doing was commenting that it is interesting people wold jump to that conclusion but NOT to the conclusion that that meant there were more years for LOTRO to continue. People wouldn't 'take it' there. Ironic no? Seeing what one wishes without seeing what that also implies.

Again, I miss the vulgarity entirely. Perhaps you could enlighten me?


AS for other comments, I really hate to do this but I'll have to use hisoka-thorongil as an example of some of the other claims made in the previous two posts.

Considering that some of my posts used to be removed based on sentiments you deny quelling is rather laughable. I guess me pointing that out in another thread has kept the forum gods hesitant to ban me,

BTW, Sapience, where may one find the list of ban lengths pertaining to the number of infractions? I was once banned for 3 months, for whatever reason (my sarcasm, unlike yours, warrants mega ban time, apparently) and I was never able to see the said list so that I could see when my ban would be lifted.

Where all such information is kept, has been kept for 6+ years and always will be kept. In the community guidelines. You can read them here: http://archive.lotro.com/community/7...nityguidelines (You can also read the DDO and AC Community Guidelines, they're the same).

I strongly suggest you read them. I'm going to point out a few things with them now.


I'll start with this section

Because every situation is different, all moderation of the Community Sites is at the discretion of the Turbine Community Team.

Because I'm going to exercise that discretion right now and instead of taking action, I'm going to point to item #17

17. We do not publicly discuss moderation decisions, or disciplinary actions taken against members, on the Community Sites and we ask that you do not either. Any threads or posts that mention infractions, bans, or thread/post deletions or modifications, etc. are subject to removal and may result in further disciplinary action.

As almost anyone can tell you, if you question an action taken against you - send a PM. In fact one is sent with every action taken (whether warning or infraction) and you can simply click "reply" and ask why. Anyone saying they don't know why (a copy of the rule they violated is sent in the infraction PM) or who to contact (it is sent from the moderator or community team member who issued the infraction and you can see that clearly in the PM) is not being fully forthcoming.

As for how many points get you what type of bans (note there is no '30 day' ban), please see this section of the community guidelines.

Infraction points are both permanent and cumulative, although many infractions will automatically expire from “Active” status. The number of infraction points issued may vary according to the severity of the incident. Please note: Warnings are not counted against your maximum infraction limit.

Temporary and permanent bans will be automatically issued by the Infraction system when your account reaches the following thresholds:

10 Active points: 1 day
15 Active points: 3 days
20 Active points: Permanent
A total of 2 infractions* (Free accounts): Permanent
A total of 10 infractions* (Premium or VIP accounts): Permanent

The Community Team reserves the right to assign temporary and permanent bans at will based upon the severity of an infraction.

* Automatic bans based on the number of infractions take all infractions into account, regardless of their Active or Expired status. If an account was above the limit when this change was implemented (August 2010) it will be banned if any further infractions are issued against it.

None of this information is hidden. None is secret and it is the same across all of our titles.

[PypeRings]

In reference to the above post pointing out the moderation of these forums:

I've been around MMOs and their forums just about as long as they have existed (pre-UO). One big difference I have found is that some community managers are actually advocates for player issues instead of just mouthpieces for the companies' point of view. And I do understand the unusual occurrence of this and reluctance for most CM's to do this. Some have even lost their jobs over this.

Just saying, you won't find much of that here and therefore, should not expect it. I am a believer that what serves customers best often serves the company best as well. It helps them to keep customers as customers over the long term. I get the sense here that churn is pretty much an accepted and expected part of their business model here.

[Fredelas]

I've been reading this post for a couple weeks now, and even chimed in once or twice. Here are a couple conclusions I've come to.

First, with the reduction of the community team to just one employee (or 1.3, or 1.5) for LOTRO, personality and personal opinions need to be taken out of the equation. When there's an interaction and diversity of voices among the employees, it can be fun and playful. But when there's only one de facto speaker for Turbine remaining on these forums, there's no room for sarcasm, in-jokes, personal responses, or incomplete references. As boring as it might be, every blue post needs to be "Just the facts, ma'am." Anything else will be misinterpreted, taken out of context, or confusing for players. And that's ultimately a disservice to the community.

Second, I don't believe the community really benefits from a meta-discussion about itself like this thread. It's an interesting intellectual and personality experiment, but the only real impact seems to be divisive. I don't say this lightly, because anyone who knows me knows that I'm all about constructive arguments and playing devil's advocate. Could we please just get back to arguing about the game instead of about each other?

[Sapience]

In reference to the above post pointing out the moderation of these forums:

I've been around MMOs and their forums just about as long as they have existed (pre-UO). One big difference I have found is that some community managers are actually advocates for player issues instead of just mouthpieces for the companies' point of view. And I do understand the unusual occurrence of this and reluctance for most CM's to do this. Some have even lost their jobs over this.

Just saying, you won't find much of that here and therefore, should not expect it. I am a believer that what serves customers best often serves the company best as well. It helps them to keep customers as customers over the long term. I get the sense here that churn is pretty much an accepted and expected part of their business model here.

Its very true that the community team goes to great lengths to be the voice of the community and bring their concerns and be advocates for the community. It's true there are many things that would not be happening if the team did not regularly bring thing to the devs and execs and make them known and cause action to be taken. From the mundane (/glff can no longer be password protected) to the major (first and second age items aren't bind on acquire) to what some may see as useless (dirving home the music bug as a major issue and making sure it was fixed so Weatherstock can go forward) by some.

[MarkoftheRealm]

So does Turbine censor ALL criticism? No. But all things being equal, criticism is more likely to trigger censorship.

Pretty much all of your points are fair and I agree that calling someone lazy is just as unacceptable as calling someone stupid, and they're both likely breaches of the CoC. As far as I know, though, the person who called a dev's actions stupid didn't receive an infraction....could be wrong of course. Sapience called that person out, and Sapience in turn was called out. Hopefully both have learned that you can have a civil disagreement without resorting to demeaning slurs.

However, the fact remains that Turbine owns these forums and we are guests. Sapience is their chosen moderator and thus judge and jury. We are pretty much here at their discretion. The CoC you keep mentioning applies to us as forum members. Your post seems to imply that it applies to Sapience or any other member of the Turbine staff. It does not. It is the guidelines for us to follow if we wish to retain forum privileges.

It's just Sapience's personality to be sarcastic, a characteristic of many forum posters as well, including me. Every now and then one of his posts comes across as a bit snarky, but I just write that off to his getting fed up with various posts he has to read where people are making stuff up, twisting words, asking about things that have been answered dozens of times, calling devs liars, outright trolling, etc. I know if I had the job, I'd probably have even more moments of weakness where I wasn't as professional as I should be.

No two people would likely draw the line at the same place when weighing the desire to have free debate versus having it remain respectful. I think Sapience does err on the side of allowing debate to run freely even though a few have started to inch across that acceptable/unacceptable line. I guess your point is that those critical of Turbine are only allowed to cross that line by an inch while those supportive aren't called out til they're a foot beyond. I certainly have felt that way at times, one in particular in my own history, but it's always going to be a matter of perspective, and the only person's perspective that truly counts here is the moderator's.

Edit: I too was unable to see the vulgarism in that specific post, and I'm one who can spot a double-entendre (intentional or not) from a mile a way!

[Crell_1]

None of this information is hidden. None is secret and it is the same across all of our titles.

Which reminds me. Any chance that part of the upcoming revamp means we can view an an up to date list of our own personal infractions and their weighted point totals (both active and inactive.)?

I remember on more than one occasion trying to proactively gather this information to no avail.

[MarkoftheRealm]

Which reminds me. Any chance that part of the upcoming revamp means we can view an an up to date list of our own personal infractions and their weighted point totals (both active and inactive.)?

I remember on more than one occasion trying to proactively gather this information to no avail.

Isn't that information listed under
my preferences > my forum settings ?

[Sapience]

The CoC you keep mentioning applies to us as forum members. Your post seems to imply that it applies to Sapience or any other member of the Turbine staff. It does not. It is the guidelines for us to follow if we wish to retain forum privileges.

Yes and no. I'll go back to #17 as my example.

17. We do not publicly discuss moderation decisions, or disciplinary actions taken against members, on the Community Sites and we ask that you do not either. Any threads or posts that mention infractions, bans, or thread/post deletions or modifications, etc. are subject to removal and may result in further disciplinary action.

We do this because while some players like to make some pretty interesting claims about their infractions, bans, warnings, or what not and we can't really reply to them in any meaningful way publicly. By that I mean literally taking their player history and dumping it out in the forums and saying "well.. actually.. here's what you got, when you got it, why you got it, your PM about it, the language you used, the warnings you were given before the infraction, etc etc." I mean, we could there's nothing really stopping us except that rule which we follow. That and it would be pretty embarrassing for the person involved and would more or less make us look like some kind of bully or worse.

So you end up seeing one side of the story and nothing else. Knowing that's the case the stories can be pretty interesting. There are many times I wish we could post the full list of infractions, warnings, messages asking someone to please stop so we don't have to remove their posting privileges, the times we send them into moderation explain we're doing it because if they continue posting in the heat of emotion they're going to earn enough infractions to get banned in an hour (remember you may only see me posting but there are a half dozen moderators and also Cordovan going through reports), the extraordinarily vulgar PMs sent for having been warned about profanity (warned, not infracted), and on and on.

Thats the reason for rule #17 and why if you have an issue, just send a PM.

A few of things you probably don't know.

The overwhelming majority of infractions are the result of reported posts. There are simply far too many posts for us to read them all (even with two members of the community team and half dozen moderators watching things. So someone else has taken issue with your post long before we saw it.

The overwhelming majority of reported posts result in no action taken.

Despite having a 10 infraction perma-ban policy for VIP and Premium players, most people who actually get perma-banned are well, well over 10 infractions by the time we actually ban them. Usually multiple times over.

F2P accounts are held more closely to the 2 infraction rule. Primarily because of sockpuppet accounts or players circumventing bans via F2P accounts.

More people complain to us about not having banned other players than complain about having been banned. Hoenstly if we banned people at the rate and for the reasons some ask us to, there wouldn't be many of you left. We could just have one forum, "Survivors".

[PoeticNightmare]

I still don't understand the forum infraction system. You see some of the same people posting nasty and rude remarks to those they disagree with, consistently, for the three years I've been here, and continue being allowed to do so.

Yet, others could post topics and replies that are always in line with the rules, are positive, lighthearted, constructive in both compliments and criticisms, posts that try to deter negativity at times, etc., and receive an infraction within minutes of posting a response that jokes with someone (actually telling them you're just joking around and adding a smiley) about using punctuation in their post.

Don't get it.

[whheydt]

[T]he extraordinarily vulgar PMs sent for having been warned about profanity (warned, not infracted), and on and on.

Having spent a good many years reading and posting on unmoderated usenet newsgroups, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

More people complain to us about not having banned other players than complain about having been banned. Hoenstly if we banned people at the rate and for the reasons some ask us to, there wouldn't be many of you left. We could just have one forum, "Survivors".

Given how some people react to some of my perfectly straightforward and neutrally expressed posts, I certainly wouldn't expect to be one of the "survivors".

[Sapience]

I still don't understand the forum infraction system. You see some of the same people posting nasty and rude remarks to those they disagree with, consistently, for the three years I've been here, and continue being allowed to do so.

Yet, others could post topics and replies that are always in line with the rules, are positive, lighthearted, constructive in both compliments and criticisms, posts that try to deter negativity at times, etc., and receive an infraction within minutes of posting a response that jokes with someone (actually telling them you're just joking around and adding a smiley) about using punctuation in their post.

Don't get it.

No one has ever been infracted for following the rules. As I mentioned above, in most cases someone has reported a post before we ever look at it, so at least one non-turbine employee thinks something is wrong. Then a PM is sent explaining what and why.

It's a bit like those who claim to have no idea why they got pulled over by the police. You did something to catch the officer's attention. It wasn't because he was bored and just looking for someone to chat with. Your shiny new ticket is also probably a sign that you were doing something you shouldn't have been.

[Eartholloth]

Sapience shouldn't you be in bed???? LOL

[MarkoftheRealm]

Yes and no. I'll go back to #17 as my example.


We do this because while some players like to make some pretty interesting claims about their infractions, bans, warnings, or what not and we can't really reply to them in any meaningful way publicly. By that I mean literally taking their player history and dumping it out in the forums and saying "well.. actually.. here's what you got, when you got it, why you got it, your PM about it, the language you used, the warnings you were given before the infraction, etc etc." I mean, we could there's nothing really stopping us except that rule which we follow. That and it would be pretty embarrassing for the person involved and would more or less make us look like some kind of bully or worse.

So you end up seeing one side of the story and nothing else. Knowing that's the case the stories can be pretty interesting. There are many times I wish we could post the full list of infractions, warnings, messages asking someone to please stop so we don't have to remove their posting privileges, the times we send them into moderation explain we're doing it because if they continue posting in the heat of emotion they're going to earn enough infractions to get banned in an hour (remember you may only see me posting but there are a half dozen moderators and also Cordovan going through reports), the extraordinarily vulgar PMs sent for having been warned about profanity (warned, not infracted), and on and on.

Thats the reason for rule #17 and why if you have an issue, just send a PM.

A few of things you probably don't know.

The overwhelming majority of infractions are the result of reported posts. There are simply far too many posts for us to read them all (even with two members of the community team and half dozen moderators watching things. So someone else has taken issue with your post long before we saw it.

The overwhelming majority of reported posts result in no action taken.

Despite having a 10 infraction perma-ban policy for VIP and Premium players, most people who actually get perma-banned are well, well over 10 infractions by the time we actually ban them. Usually multiple times over.

F2P accounts are held more closely to the 2 infraction rule. Primarily because of sockpuppet accounts or players circumventing bans via F2P accounts.

More people complain to us about not having banned other players than complain about having been banned. Hoenstly if we banned people at the rate and for the reasons some ask us to, there wouldn't be many of you left. We could just have one forum, "Survivors".

Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I appreciate it. I'm one of the ones that cringes sometimes at the way you say things in a few of your posts where I feel you could be a little more diplomatic or understanding of someone's frustration or just lack of knowledge (sometimes information IS hard to find on here even when you somewhat know your way around), but I also understand that you get frustrated too and that some people on here seem to try to make your job a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

[Fredelas]

It's a bit like those who claim to have no idea why they got pulled over by the police. You did something to catch the officer's attention. It wasn't because he was bored and just looking for someone to chat with. Your shiny new ticket is also probably a sign that you were doing something you shouldn't have been.

I would not be so keen to make law enforcement analogies. Studies have shown for years that after being stopped, whether a driver actually receives a ticket is strongly influenced by the looks, personalities, and relationships of both officer and driver. This is partly due to human nature (and only rarely by policy), but we should not assume that Turbine's employees and customers are immune to the same kinds of moods and influences.

[xDementedx]

Given how some people react to some of my perfectly straightforward and neutrally expressed posts, I certainly wouldn't expect to be one of the "survivors".

I'm sorry that is a very egotistical thing to say. No one makes "perfectly straightforward" or "neutrally" expressed posts. But I'm overreacting and I think I'm going to recommend you be banned.

[Sapience]

I would not be so keen to make law enforcement analogies. Studies have shown for years that after being stopped, whether a driver actually receives a ticket is strongly influenced by the looks, personalities, and relationships of both officer and driver. This is partly due to human nature (and only rarely by policy), but we should not assume that Turbine's employees and customers are immune to the same kinds of moods and influences.

There are always those people who will make a counter argument regardless of what is said, like the person who will go to lengths to explain that the sky is not in fact blue, it's merely and optical illusion whenever anyone dare say the sky is blue.

I have been pulled over 4 times in my life. Each time I knew the moment I saw the lights exactly why I was being pulled over. Not one of those times was the answer, "because I was obeying every law and the cop was bored."

[Damojo]

Would appreciate a link to the forums where criticism of Lotro, its staff, Turbine etc. results in instant infractions & bans for the poster - and the forums, therefore, would be page after page of positive feedback without a whiff of negativity, dissent or trolling. Because it is blindingly obvious it isn't these forums. Obviously me being a "fanboi" would say that, it's not like a couple of seconds spent just looking at topic headers, never mind posts, proves the whole thing to be untrue.

[Beaniemooch]

There's a difference in saying something is laziness and calling a specific person lazy. Telling someone that not looking for something that is there to be found is laziness does not say Hey Beaniemooch you are lazy - even though I may be guilty of said laziness. There really is a difference in tone between saying something about a behavior versus an individual.

I don't always like the answers and I don't always think the answers are complete. But threads like this do serve a purpose. They let us express our opinions, vent our frustrations, and occasionally get at least part of an answer. If nothing else we're exposed to opposing viewpoints.

This is a private forum so no freedom of expression truly applies, but people are given a pretty good amount of slack. I appreciate that even when I get tired of the "you said this and it means something you clearly don't understand, you moron" type posts.

I'm still waiting to find out why the 1st age symbol drops on Erebor T1 weren't in the known bug listings.... Sorry, had to throw that in there.

[NukeTheLag]

I went past most of the twisting of things and settled on this one as I find it most interesting. Vulgarism? In what way and why would anyone be offended. Unless, they're looking to twist something into something else.

in context, the comment, "The irony though is in where people won't take it." was a response to someone saying "you know where they'll take that statement". The statement in question being my comment about announcing pre-orders for expansions a few years down the road. The supposition of the person asking if I knew where people would take that would be that people would claim I just pre-announced several years worth of expansions and 'take it' and run, when what I was really doing was commenting that it is interesting people wold jump to that conclusion but NOT to the conclusion that that meant there were more years for LOTRO to continue. People wouldn't 'take it' there. Ironic no? Seeing what one wishes without seeing what that also implies.

Again, I miss the vulgarity entirely. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

1) I have sent PMs on this very subject and received no response. Maybe check your Inbox? Seriously, I wouldn’t be posting this had you responded even once. Also, I note you addressed none of the other points I made. Specifically the central point that while criticism of Turbine, per se, won’t result in a ban, etc. it is at the very least, a tie breaker as to whether something violates the CoC.

2) As to the one point you addressed, it is difficult to enlighten when I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously, I have read that paragraph 16 times and cannot discern the meaning. It seems like you are treating your response to your own statement as a response to someone else’s statement maybe?

So to review the relevant posts:

The "why" should be, "Why doesn't turbine like taking my money for a prepurchase?"
I would only laugh if it were to all end in 2014.

I think you misunderstand. No one said there isn't going to be a pre-purchase. We just haven't said when it will be.

I suppose one could make the arguement we haven't announced when we'll start the prepurchase for next year's expansion, too... or the one the year after that, or that....and so on.

Lol, Sapience, you know where people will take *that* answer!

Yes I do. The irony though is in where people won't take it.

This, in fact, is the order that the relevant posts were made. You make it sound as though that you first made the (irrelevant) comment about posting for years worth of expansions and then Glenwin responded with the quote at issue. In fact, Glenwin made the quote and then you responded with the remark about future expansions. So, honestly, I am really not understanding. There is simply nothing in Glenwin’s post about future expansions, announcements about future expansions, etc. This first arises when you raise it. Whatever arguments for why this is not a vulgarism cannot possibly be based upon the notion that you were responding to someone else’s comments about future expansions.

Perhaps if the pertinent quote in question was “you know [HOW] people will take *that* answer” then there would be some merit to whatever point you are trying to make. Or, given the temporal aspect that seems to be part of the paragraph, (I think?), “you know [WHEN] people will take *that* answer” then this might make sense.

But when the statement is: “When you know [WHERE] people will take *that* answer. . . ” Really? They’ll take the answer in Finland? They’ll take the answer with Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room?

I guess your argument is that they’ll take the answer to “Infinity and Beyond?"

Well maybe. But all of this misses the central point: Even conceding that there is some room to spin this, had a similar post been critical rather than supportive of Turbine then the spin would have been that it was vulgarity. Regardless of either the subjective intent of the post about “where people will take it” or what a reasonable person would deem to be the objective meaning, it clearly could be interpreted as a vulgarity. In other words, the question is not whether the statement was vulgarity in some absolute sense. Rather, it is whether, had the statement been critical of Turbine, would there have been a basis to censor based upon the pretext that it could have been construed as a CoC violation? The answer is clearly yes.

And so this is what happens: 1) Someone posts something critical of Turbine; 2) There is some possible basis to claim that the post violates the CoC; 3) Ergo, the post violates the CoC, regardless of the poster’s intent or how most people would construe the statement. That is the issue.

3) And the beauty is, since the CoC precludes people from discussing specific moderation decisions, no one is allowed to present the voluminous evidence of the double standard. Nice Star Chamber proceedings there. There is no procedure to appeal a decision. There is no opportunity to plead one’s case before a decision is made. The proceedings are not public. Yeah, that’s fair. In what possible sense can one say that “None of this information is hidden. None is secret . . .?”

4) How are we supposed to square this circle:?

Where all such information is kept, has been kept for 6+ years and always will be kept. In the community guidelines. . . . . I strongly suggest you read them. . . .I'm going to point out a few things with them now.

. . . all moderation of the Community Sites is at the discretion of the Turbine Community Team

I’m kinda surprised you didn’t quote the following from the CoC: “Turbine has final say over what constitutes a violation of the Code of Conduct. Turbine reserves the right to change the Code of Conduct at any time.”

If the CoC means whatever Turbine says it means and it can be changed at anytime, then what, exactly, is the point of reading the rules? There are no rules. This is absurd. A few points:

- The contract means whatever we say it means – This may work in “Alice Through The Looking Glass” but in the real world, a contract, by definition means that there are certain clearly deliniated obligations which each party has that are not subject to change without further consideration. Let’s say someone signs a one year lease agreement: In exchange for $1,000 each month, you can live in this apartment. But also, buried in the fine print, there was also a clause that said the landlord can change the rent amount at anytime without notice and that the landlord is the final say on the meaning of the contract. I can guarantee you that a Court would say: 1) the clause is unenforceable and as long as the tenant pays $1,000 per month he can live in the apartment; or 2) no contract was formed and therefore the tenant is entitled to receive back any rent he has already paid minus the value of any time he lived in the apartment. Which is pretty much six of one/half a dozen of the other. The legal reasoning is besides the point (unconscionabilty, failure of consideration, etc.). That would be the end game regardless of the legal travel route. To put more generally, a “contract” that means whatever what one of the parties to the contract unilaterally says it means is the very antithesis of a contract. I mean, we are talking “Schoolhouse Rock” level of understanding the law here.

- Even conceding that one party to contract can unilaterally change the terms without any consideration, then at least for the nanosecond that the terms are in effect, then those are the rules. These forums are chock full of examples where people criticizing Turbine are treated differently from people defending Turbine. So what are the rules?

- There’s also this little thing called the Obligation of Good Faith. (Though knowing Turbine, buried in the fine print of the ToS or somewhere, Turbine disavowed this obligation. Don’t Know. Don’t Care. Even if they did, this nonsense never holds up in court, and in any event, isn’t that really that all you need to know about Turbine?) Under this obligation of good faith, Turbine has to at least give notice of what the rules are. When people ask what the rules are and there is no response, then they cannot be held to the rules, especially when the rules mean whatever Turbine says they mean at any time. Thus when you claim, that “None of this information is hidden. None is secret[,]” this is simply not true. When the rules are whatever Turbine says they are at any given moment, there is no possible way to know what the rules are without knowing the reasons other people are infracted/censored/etc. so that one has a reference point. But since discussing that is verboten, the information is in fact hidden and secret.

In short, there are limits to the extent a corporation can make it up as it goes along, and even if it can do this, the rules have to well-promulgated and evenly applied. There is none of this going on here. And a final note. The ability to post on a forum is not a privilege anymore than the right of a tenant to live in an apartment for which he pays rent is a privilege. (Again, not everyone is
F2P. That is a common source of people talking past one another on these forums). Some of us have paid money for, among other things, the contractual right to post on these forums. To the extent we violate the CoC, then under the terms of the contract, that right can be abrogated. But if we don't violate the CoC then it is Turbine who breaches the contract by banning or censoring. Alternatively, if the CoC means whatever Turbine says it means and there is no way of knowing at any given moment how Turbine interprets it, then there really is no CoC and thus no basis to abrogate our contractual rights.


5) Context Is Consistently Ignored

Not to beat a dead horse, but just in this thread, the issue of the FA “bug” came up. I would agree that this issue, standing alone, would not be evidence of a “conspiracy theory” as you put it. But when it is this issue, plus similar issues with Durchest, etc., plus ”convenience not advantage” plus the IC debacle in the RoR annoucement plus the seeming double standard with CoC enforcement plus lag issues plus . . . .

Every one of your posts always looks at the tree. The playerbase sees the forest. That, perhaps, is the overarching theme of these disagreements. Yes, probably every concern raised by someone, in and of itself, can be easily dismissed. The problem is that, when there are 100 different concerns, this no longer works. Flippantly dismissing peoples questions and concerns with "nothing to see here folks," arbitrary bans, pretending questions were answered when they weren't, corporate spin, etc. can work when there are a few issues. It may work when there are a dozen issues. But when this game has as many issues as it has at the moment, this stuff just doesn't fly.

And don't get me wrong. I sympathize that you are the guy who has to put lipstick on the pig. I understand what you are trying to do. But one could buy out the Revlon factory and there still isn't enough lipstick to disguise this pig.

Anyway, I stand by the basic point: All things being equal, a post critical of Turbine is more likely to result in an infraction than one defending Turbine.

[Edrogar]

No one has ever been infracted for following the rules. As I mentioned above, in most cases someone has reported a post before we ever look at it, so at least one non-turbine employee thinks something is wrong. Then a PM is sent explaining what and why.

This may be true, but it's also true that in many cases people have broken the rules and not been punished and in fact been encouraged by yourself. Case in point, a certain post that is still open that is a blatant attempt to troll against the conspiracy crowd, yet there you are a few posts in explaining the troll to people and the thread is still open. It really does look sometimes like you only punish those who are critical of Turbine and protect those who stand up for Turbine even when they're trolling. We don't mind the moderation, but at least make it consistent for everybody.

[Fredelas]

There are always those people who will make a counter argument regardless of what is said, like the person who will go to lengths to explain that the sky is not in fact blue, it's merely and optical illusion whenever anyone dare say the sky is blue.

I have been pulled over 4 times in my life. Each time I knew the moment I saw the lights exactly why I was being pulled over. Not one of those times was the answer, "because I was obeying every law and the cop was bored."

To make a counter-argument, I've been pulled over 3 times. Once was for for driving 16-20 MPH over the speed limit (a fairly serious offense, but I was in desperate need of a restroom and was approaching a rest area), but I only got a warning because I mentioned to the the trooper that I was dating another law enforcement officer, and it turns out they knew of each other. I knew why I was pulled over, but I wasn't surprised that I got away with only a warning.

Once was for having an improperly illuminated rear license plate. I can honestly say I didn't know why I was pulled over in this case. I asked if I could step out to look at it, and it turns out the lamp covers were just dusty. I brushed them off with my fingers and that seemed to be enough for the deputy. But as he was walking away, he noticed a decal on the back window of my truck he apparently took issue with. He decided to write me a citation after all (for $75!), in his own words, for being from out-of-state, and for being something else not fit to repeat here.

The only other time I was pulled over was because my skin was a different color than most people in the country I was studying in at the time. (The first words out of her mouth were, "You are not from here.") The officer was just curious and we ended up having a cool conversation, although I was very nervous for the first minute or so.

Also, I got a ticket for jay-walking once across a completely empty street. It was silly, but not really something I could contest. A couple years later I pointed out to an officer in a convenience store on the same street that someone else was jay-walking in actual traffic, and mentioned I had gotten a ticket in the same place. The officer said it was no longer an enforcement priority unless it actually caused an accident.

I'm glad you have had perfectly consistent experiences with law enforcement personnel, but I would guess that most people's experiences have varied widely.

If you can honestly claim (which I do not deny is possible) that no Turbine employee has ever been in a bad mood, found a certain personality annoying, been too busy to completely read a long conversation, made an impulsive moderation decision, bent the rules, or even ignored them because of more important priorities, then I think you should all be in law enforcement, instead of moderating forums and managing online communities.