1433 réponses à ce sujet

[The Don's Hound]

Changes that dont make the website a piece of [crap]

[No swearing, please.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 28 janvier 2014 - 08:14 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Seival wrote...

Since moderators prefer to close entire threads because of posts like this:
http://social.biowar...1123/3#17821579
instead of removing the spam reply and punishing the spammer, it would be nice to have an option to prohibit particular users from participation in threads you create. Or an option to moderate your own threads.

That option exists.

Create a group. Invite the people you are interested in hearing from. Don't invite the people you don't want to hear from. Start the thread in there.

It doesn't even take any particular effort. The bulk of the steps could be accomplished in ten minutes.

By contrast, upending the way BSN works as a public forum, simply so you can pick and choose who is allowed to reply seems like a terrible idea, and I definitely would not want to see any changes that reflected that kind of system.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Seival wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Seival wrote...

I believe that all moderators should know what are they doing, not only a part of them. Maybe most moderators on BSN just don't have enough admin rights to ban spammers and remove their posts? If so, then it would be quite easy to fix.

Check PSN forums. Everyone are very polite there, because people know they can get their consoles banned permanently for spamming or saying something rude on forums. Harsh? Definitely. But this provides PSN forums with very friendly atmosphere.

That "friendly atmosphere" is born from the fear of getting your console banned not out of respect for each other. Besides, is it even legal for Sony to block your console?

Of course. Break the rules once - and you are in the black list, unable to use your console for multiplayer or post anything on forums. Teaches the nice manners just perfectly.

[Inappropriate comments removed.]

As to the legality Odan, it's dubious and rather fuzzy, contractual terms allow the contractor certain rights as per stipulated within the contract, yet those terms, clauses and warranties are subject to contract law and not all of them are legal even if they are entered into by accepting the contract. Certain terms, warranties and clauses are implied or regarded as onerrous and struck from the contract should a legal dispute take place, namely for uncertainty or vague terms. 

Most companies rely on ignorance of the legal system to use contracts which they know are dicey at best, because most people won't challenge it. Hence the arbitration clauses, used to prevent a legal judgment by the court system, the risk being that the entire contract would be rendered void and all contracts with seperate persons would be as well, and a new contract would have to be accepted by millions of users, consumers etc. and they're under no obligation to accept the contract, and they part ways. That's a worst case senario for any company. Arbitration removes that possibility for the company. 

Currently Sony are preventing the service to the PSN only, not bricking the console entirely, so it's possible to sell the console on or play off line. But as most terms, the behaviour clauses are vague, and Sony isn't stupid enough to go on a mass banning spree over the smallest infractions and rile up thousands of people who may cause problems and draw attention to the service clause. 

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 28 janvier 2014 - 08:18 .

[Br3admax]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Seival wrote...

I block only people, who did or most likely will try to turn my profile comments into a thread or a group. And this is one more thing that has to be discussed here by the way. How can I ask people to use profile comments only as profile comments, not as a group or as a thread? I don't wanna prohibit everyone from posting in my profile comments. Selective blocking is the only working solution right now.

I never posted a comment on your profile, yet you have blocked me from your profile. The only thing I've done to you is disagree with you. That goes back to my point. People will block whoever they don't like or disagree with, which isn't necessairly a bad thing.

Yes, that is a bad thing, because it's a forum. You know, like thos things in ancient Greece. That is why there are a groups for everyone to agree on most things, and then there's the public forum where we can have actual discussion and agree or disagree. Seival can start a group if he wants to talk to his own opinion over and over again, but he shouldn't have pull in the public. 

[Seival]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

Seival wrote...

Since moderators prefer to close entire threads because of posts like this:
http://social.biowar...1123/3#17821579
instead of removing the spam reply and punishing the spammer, it would be nice to have an option to prohibit particular users from participation in threads you create. Or an option to moderate your own threads.

That option exists.

Create a group. Invite the people you are interested in hearing from. Don't invite the people you don't want to hear from. Start the thread in there.

It doesn't even take any particular effort. The bulk of the steps could be accomplished in ten minutes.

By contrast, upending the way BSN works as a public forum, simply so you can pick and choose who is allowed to reply seems like a terrible idea, and I definitely would not want to see any changes that reflected that kind of system.

Unfortunately, groups will soon be removed from BSN, so this is not an option anymore. And even groups didn't fully fix the environment in the rest of BSN. Harsh moderation, that includes possibility of blocking Origin account as a punishment for spamming and saying something rude looks quite attractive, and doesn't break basic people rights.

[OdanUrr]

Tequila Cat wrote...

As to the legality Odan, it's dubious and rather fuzzy, contractual terms allow the contractor certain rights as per stipulated within the contract, yet those terms, clauses and warranties are subject to contract law and not all of them are legal even if they are entered into by accepting the contract. Certain terms, warranties and clauses are implied or regarded as onerrous and struck from the contract should a legal dispute take place, namely for uncertainty or vague terms. 

Most companies rely on ignorance of the legal system to use contracts which they know are dicey at best, because most people won't challenge it. Hence the arbitration clauses, used to prevent a legal judgment by the court system, the risk being that the entire contract would be rendered void and all contracts with seperate persons would be as well, and a new contract would have to be accepted by millions of users, consumers etc. and they're under no obligation to accept the contract, and they part ways. That's a worst case senario for any company. Arbitration removes that possibility for the company. 

Currently Sony are preventing the service to the PSN only, not bricking the console entirely, so it's possible to sell the console on or play off line. But as most terms, the behaviour clauses are vague, and Sony isn't stupid enough to go on a mass banning spree over the smallest infractions and rile up thousands of people who may cause problems and draw attention to the service clause. 

That was quite illuminating. Thanks!

[Billy-the-Squid]

Seival wrote...

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

Seival wrote...

Since moderators prefer to close entire threads because of posts like this:
http://social.biowar...1123/3#17821579
instead of removing the spam reply and punishing the spammer, it would be nice to have an option to prohibit particular users from participation in threads you create. Or an option to moderate your own threads.

That option exists.

Create a group. Invite the people you are interested in hearing from. Don't invite the people you don't want to hear from. Start the thread in there.

It doesn't even take any particular effort. The bulk of the steps could be accomplished in ten minutes.

By contrast, upending the way BSN works as a public forum, simply so you can pick and choose who is allowed to reply seems like a terrible idea, and I definitely would not want to see any changes that reflected that kind of system.

Unfortunately, groups will soon be removed from BSN, so this is not an option anymore. And even groups didn't fully fix the environment in the rest of BSN. Harsh moderation, that includes possibility of blocking Origin account as a punishment for spamming and saying something rude looks quite attractive, and doesn't break basic people rights.

It breaks the contract between EA and the user. Product in return for payment. Behaviour has nothing to do with that not unless you're actually hacking accounts and breaking servers. 

[dreamgazer]

Seival wrote...

Unfortunately, groups will soon be removed from BSN ...

[citation needed]

[Mr.House]

Banning people from playing their games on Origin because they are not nice to crazies like you is beyond stupid, not to mention it breaks the contract that was signed between the user and EA.

[Seival]

Mr.House wrote...

Banning people from playing their games on Origin because they are not nice to crazies like you is beyond stupid, not to mention it breaks the contract that was signed between the user and EA.

Did you ever read a game EULA? Suggested punishment for breaking simple rules about polite behavior doesn't break anything there.

[Mr.House]

Seival wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Banning people from playing their games on Origin because they are not nice to crazies like you is beyond stupid, not to mention it breaks the contract that was signed between the user and EA.

Did you ever read a game EULA? Suggested punishment for breaking simple rules about polite behavior doesn't break anything there.

The Origin contract is not the same as posting the BSN, I hope you know that. Behavior on a forum should not at all impact playing the games, at all. To think that just hsows YOU want to control people.

[OdanUrr]

Mr.House wrote...

Seival wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Banning people from playing their games on Origin because they are not nice to crazies like you is beyond stupid, not to mention it breaks the contract that was signed between the user and EA.

Did you ever read a game EULA? Suggested punishment for breaking simple rules about polite behavior doesn't break anything there.

The Origin contract is not the same as posting the BSN, I hope you know that. Behavior on a forum should not at all impact playing the games, at all. To think that just hsows YOU want to control people.

In fact, it doesn't. This is from the Site Rules (the bolded part is my doing):

15. Bans and access to game content. Bans preventing access to BioWare Social Network and/or forum post access will not affect your ability to play EA games or downloadable content. Further, any PC code redemptions (for promotional items or DLC) may still be conducted via the Origin client. If you have any trouble accessing/downloading content that came with your game or if you believe your account was banned in error, please contact an EA Game Advisor for assistance.

[dreamgazer]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

If I were one of the people making decisions, then I'd at least consider the possibility of community policing. I say that as a person who'd probably be kicked out of 85% of threads here. I just feel like this would cut down on toxicity, even at the cost of free conversation.

What good is a public forum where authoritative posters can tunnel-vision the participation to only fit their needs?

What happens when they refer to that thread as "proof" of a community discussion affirming their position? 

[Br3admax]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Yes, that is a bad thing, because it's a forum. You know, like thos things in ancient Greece. That is why there are a groups for everyone to agree on most things, and then there's the public forum where we can have actual discussion and agree or disagree. Seival can start a group if he wants to talk to his own opinion over and over again, but he shouldn't have pull in the public. 

On a conversational level, sure, it's a really bad idea. On a pratical level on a site that is having behavioral problems with no immediate solution, then it isn't a really bad idea. If I were one of the people making decisions, then I'd at least consider the possibility of community policing. I say that as a person who'd probably be kicked out of 85% of threads here. I just feel like this would cut down on toxicity, even at the cost of free conversation.

(I mean, just look at this page)

For insulting sure, but disagreeing, no. That sounds horrible. 

1. I like dogs.
2. I like cats, though.
3. I also like cats more than dogs.
1. Get outta my thread.
4. I like dogs.
1. You can stay, ban the rest.

That's not being practicle; that's defeating the entire pupose of a forum. 


As to Seival: Considering the number of your threads where you go on to say that free will is a  bad thing, I'm not surprised by your totalitarianesque forum idea. Do go on. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 26 janvier 2014 - 03:19 .

[Mr.House]

dreamgazer wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

If I were one of the people making decisions, then I'd at least consider the possibility of community policing. I say that as a person who'd probably be kicked out of 85% of threads here. I just feel like this would cut down on toxicity, even at the cost of free conversation.

What good is a public forum where authoritative posters can tunnel-vision the participation to only fit their needs?

What happens when they refer to that thread as "proof" of a community discussion affirming their position? 

Bingo.

[OdanUrr]

LPPrince wrote...

Guys guys guys. Lets not turn this into other inevitably-gets-locked Everyone vs. Seival's Logic thread.

I wouldn't worry about this thread getting locked but it'll probably be pruned.

[General TSAR]

[Off-topic comments removed.]

Ontopic: I would like to see the option to embed YouTube videos here.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 28 janvier 2014 - 08:24 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Seival wrote...

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

Seival wrote...

Since moderators prefer to close entire threads because of posts like this:
http://social.biowar...1123/3#17821579
instead of removing the spam reply and punishing the spammer, it would be nice to have an option to prohibit particular users from participation in threads you create. Or an option to moderate your own threads.

That option exists.

Create a group. Invite the people you are interested in hearing from. Don't invite the people you don't want to hear from. Start the thread in there.

It doesn't even take any particular effort. The bulk of the steps could be accomplished in ten minutes.

By contrast, upending the way BSN works as a public forum, simply so you can pick and choose who is allowed to reply seems like a terrible idea, and I definitely would not want to see any changes that reflected that kind of system.

Unfortunately, groups will soon be removed from BSN, so this is not an option anymore. And even groups didn't fully fix the environment in the rest of BSN. Harsh moderation, that includes possibility of blocking Origin account as a punishment for spamming and saying something rude looks quite attractive, and doesn't break basic people rights.

On what basis are you saying that groups are being removed? Was there an announcement? I've seen nothing to that effect.

And I never said groups were intended to fix the environment of BSN - I don't even know how that would supposedly work... or what it has to do with what I actually said.

I said that if you don't want certain people to post in your threads, create a group for that purpose. In spite of your assertion, that option does exist, and there isn't any indication that it won't, for the foreseeable future.

As far as blocking Origin accounts, well, interesting theory. I don't have an Origin account, so I guess my punishment would be less severe than everyone else's? Doesn't seem like a fair solution.

Is this perhaps because you think this entire system is somehow unfair to you? That extra punishment should be given to those whom you believe have wronged you?

I've had threads that explain how to fix bugs in ME 3 locked by mods, simply because people added discussion to them months after they were created. A thread like that can't simply be re-made without having to go back and fix all the links in other threads, or in the Resource Library. I would say that is an issue that might be worth addressing.

Your thread, locked for Spider Man spam, could simply be re-created, without much consequence. I don't see that as being a major concern for BSN.

[Br3admax]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

As far as blocking Origin accounts, well, interesting theory. I don't have an Origin account, so I guess my punishment would be less severe than everyone else's? Doesn't seem like a fair solution.

Wait...how? How do you play ME3? How do you even post here? 

[AresKeith]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Thinking about it, you (and pretty much everyone else) would just delete anyone they didn't like from their threads. Then again, that might just cut down on arguments, so that sort of solution might not be as bad as it seems at first. I think you got a decent solution there, Sevial (despite the fact that you'd block me for being a troll, though I'm not).

That's still a terrible idea

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Br3ad wrote...

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

As far as blocking Origin accounts, well, interesting theory. I don't have an Origin account, so I guess my punishment would be less severe than everyone else's? Doesn't seem like a fair solution.

Wait...how? How do you play ME3? How do you even post here? 

Through magical, non-Origin places, called XBL and PSN! 

Though, truthfully, I will likely have an Origin account, and a copy of ME 3 for PC, eventually. My systemic takeover of all things ME 3 is a slow, labourious process!