167 réponses à ce sujet

[frustratemyself]

So instead of a neatly laid out list of sub forums on the front page we have a wall of almost neon orange text.


Well done BW, I love websites that make my eyes bleed.

[Wulfram]

Do not [...] criticize any person or group of people

Seems quite restrictive. Even if, as I assume, the (sometimes rather fine) distinction is being made between criticising someone's work and criticising them.

[Drone223]

Any idea on what you hope the finalised format will be like Jess? Also will we still need to register games to post on certain forums because I understand trying to prevent advert spam, but at the same time its rather unfair on those who want to part take in discussion but don't have the game registered. 

Modifié par Drone223, 07 février 2014 - 03:47 .

[HiroVoid]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Do not [...] criticize any person or group of people

Seems quite restrictive. Even if, as I assume, the (sometimes rather fine) distinction is being made between criticising someone's work and criticising them.

I do think they chose the wrong word there. Criticizing denotes an argumentation and is not negative or positive by virtue of existing. There is positive criticism as is negative and there is proper criticism as is improper.


If I said some exemplary developer's latest work of this or that is excellent, I am criticizing. If I say the same work is not so and give my reasons why I think like that, I am also criticizing, albeit in a proper, civilized and productive manner.

Saying  the same exemplary developer's lates work is TEH F***ING S*** *bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo* and everyone should go *bleeeeeep* themselves in their collective *bleeeeeep* however would be improper criticism, unproductive and should be rightfully reduced to the least amount possible, i.e. forbidden via ToS to ensure a proper conduct within the forum.




At least I think that is the spirit of that rule.


If we were to take that at face value in the literal sense, nothing but "yes master" would be an appropriate response and I seriously doubt that is the environment they are trying to achieve.

It actually seems to be saying more 'Criticise the argument.  Not the person.'  Criticising a person's argument is fine such as:  'I believe the templars are wrong and this is why...'.  What wouldn't be considered right is 'I believe the templars are wrong and your belief that they're right makes you a fascist.'  Or 'Seeing how you're responding or your beliefs in this game, I can tell you're THIS kind of person in real life.'  And last example, 'Based on your reasonings, I can tell you obviously need to get outside more, you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed, that you're a republic, that you're a politically correct liberal, etc...'

There's also the fact that while direct attacks are obvious and dealt with the fact is that on here and a lot of forums people get away with passive aggresive attacks since they know they'll get warned or banned by a mod for a direct attack.

Edit: As far as the forum layout goes, a good bit of work still needs to go in.  The current layout still has 'topics, last replies, last replay' in the main forum.  Don't know how to do it since I don't have experience in web design, but having the ability to see what may be the latest updated thread in each general sub-forum seems like it would help in getting them more noticed and active.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 07 février 2014 - 06:32 .

[Silfren]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Do not [...] criticize any person or group of people

Seems quite restrictive. Even if, as I assume, the (sometimes rather fine) distinction is being made between criticising someone's work and criticising them.

I do think they chose the wrong word there. Criticizing denotes an argumentation and is not negative or positive by virtue of existing. There is positive criticism as is negative and there is proper criticism as is improper.

If I said some exemplary developer's latest work of this or that is excellent, I am criticizing. If I say the same work is not so and give my reasons why I think like that, I am also criticizing, albeit in a proper, civilized and productive manner.

You're confusing criticizing someone with critiquing them.  Criticism has a solidly negative connotation.  You're NOT criticising someone if you leave a positive critique about their work. 

Now that I'm dong being pedantic, I would agree that "criticize" is the wrong word for them to use.  It's too broadly applicable: as in, you can criticize someone without attacking them, but criticize in this sense is being made to be synonymous with attack.  Moreover, simply saying of someone, "I think you're wrong, and here's why" amounts criticizing them, even though it is patently NOT an attack, so without further clarification of that rule the possibility is left open for disagreeing with someone, even without actually attacking them personally, to be a violation of the TOS. 

Bottom line, it's MUCH too broad, especially since intepretation of and enforcement of the rules is left to the discretion of each individual mod: what one is okay with another will hand out bans over.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 février 2014 - 06:55 .

[OdanUrr]

Silfren wrote...

Bottom line, it's MUCH too broad, especially since intepretation of and enforcement of the rules is left to the discretion of each individual mod: what one is okay with another will hand out bans over.

Hence why we need an appeals system in place.

[fchopin]

I do not understand this (Trolling is posting with the intent to provoke an emotional response from another user.)

The purpose for posting is to get an emotional response from another user, so if this is not allowed what is the reason to post in the first place?

[CroGamer002]

Well I like rules changes.

It no longer looks totalitarian, but returned in being reasonable.

[DragonRacer]

I like the overhaul of the site rules. Easier to read and comprehend, I think.

OdanUrr wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Bottom line, it's MUCH too broad, especially since intepretation of and enforcement of the rules is left to the discretion of each individual mod: what one is okay with another will hand out bans over.

Hence why we need an appeals system in place.

I whole-heartedly agree that an appeals system should be put into place. Unless rule # 7 that gives the contact@bioware.com email is supposed to be the main contact for appealing?

[CrutchCricket]

So... how bout that PM function...?

[fchopin]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...


Furthermore, trolling is usually defined as intended to provoke a negative emotional response, just to make the point clear.

A negative emotional response i can understand but i see nothing wrong with trying to evoke a positive emotional response.


This still does not make sense to me so i would appreciate a response from whoever made the rule.

[In Exile]

 I have a question regarding the scope of "off-topic" in the following rule: 

 Off-Topic Commentary: Don't post topics or replies unrelated to a thread. Posts like these are unlikely to be seen by the intended audience and can spawn non-productive discussions, as well as split otherwise useful discussions into multiple channels.

How strictly is "unrelated" going to be interpreted, in light of the comment that unrelated replies can "split otherwise useful discussions into multiple channels"? Obviously something like a side discussion about IRL politics or sports in a DA2 or ME3 related threat is off-limits, but does this extent to some notion of "actual connection to the OP"? 

By that, I mean if the topic is (for example) "Will Mana Renegerate in DA:I?" and the conversation shifts to a general discussion about how to balance classes, does that make it off-topic? That's arguably a separate channel, and so it would "split the discussion into multiple channels". 

Or, as another example, if the discussion is "Should the endings be bittersweet?" and someone discusses, say, the ending of Open Palm Jade Empire ending as an example of why endings shouldn't be bittersweet, is that off-limits? 

Thanks! 

[Billy-the-Squid]

[Off-topic and inappropriate post removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 février 2014 - 08:31 .

[Yggdrasil]

OdanUrr wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Bottom line, it's MUCH too broad, especially since intepretation of and enforcement of the rules is left to the discretion of each individual mod: what one is okay with another will hand out bans over.

Hence why we need an appeals system in place.

They aren't looking for a reason to ban people.  They're just trying to make the forums positive, constructive and fun.  They have to keep the language broad; otherwise, people's first knee-jerk response will be, "Well, it wasn't in the guidelines."

[Volus Warlord]

[Inappropriate quote removed.]

After looking at the rules.. hmm. Profanity is such a vague term. 

For instance, many people I know consider saying "what the hell" to be swearing, and many do not.

And then there's all these other  borderline terms, "******", "ass" etc. 

Can you just be more direct with the rules and say "we will hand out bans arbitrarily as we see fit, 'nuff said" ?  Most of the rules are worded as vague suggestions.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 février 2014 - 08:31 .

[Volus Warlord]

DragonRacer wrote...

I like the overhaul of the site rules. Easier to read and comprehend, I think.

OdanUrr wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Bottom line, it's MUCH too broad, especially since intepretation of and enforcement of the rules is left to the discretion of each individual mod: what one is okay with another will hand out bans over.

Hence why we need an appeals system in place.

I whole-heartedly agree that an appeals system should be put into place. Unless rule # 7 that gives the contact@bioware.com email is supposed to be the main contact for appealing?

Appeals? Really? It's a freakin' video game forum! 

"Oh noes I said something off color and now I lost access to the forum for 24 hours!" Just wait it out.. There are plenty of other things you can do. 

[ObserverStatus]

Jessica Merizan wrote...
Hello everyone! I just wanted to give a quick heads up about continued changes we are making on this site. Today we are updating our site rules (you can find these here: http://social.biowar...page/site-rules) to be more comprehensive and cover what has traditionally been "gray area". I hope this helps everyone have better interactions on the forums. Please make use of the report system when you need to. I have moderators who periodically check the site 24-hours a day and that's how they know there’s a problem.

Interesting, the word "politics" seems to have been completely removed from the rules. Does this mean what I think it means?

[Volus Warlord]

bobobo878 wrote...

Jessica Merizan wrote...
Hello everyone! I just wanted to give a quick heads up about continued changes we are making on this site. Today we are updating our site rules (you can find these here: http://social.biowar...page/site-rules) to be more comprehensive and cover what has traditionally been "gray area". I hope this helps everyone have better interactions on the forums. Please make use of the report system when you need to. I have moderators who periodically check the site 24-hours a day and that's how they know there’s a problem.

Interesting, the word "politics" seems to have been completely removed from the rules. Does this mean what I think it means?

[Inapprorpiate comment removed.]

Or another oversight in their rules. Apparently there was a few.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 février 2014 - 08:35 .

[ObserverStatus]

[Off-topic post removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 février 2014 - 08:34 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Ah... when Polls/Albums/Blogs will be activated?

[Volus Warlord]

[Off-topic post removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 07 février 2014 - 08:33 .