383 réponses à ce sujet

[corporal doody]

the more i have been thinking about the closure of BSN...the more upset i get. This place is TOXIC....and that Retake horsecrap made it even more so. I had assumed that things would die down...but it hasnt. The pure BILE that is spewed on this board is disgusting...so i see why BW wants to separate from the negativity.

 

I dont think Twitter is the place to go as a primary source to get info from BW. Twitter only allows "shiny happy" speech....and the speech they DEEM fitting. I dont agree with that..at all.  I disagree with the BS TOXIC STUFF here on the BSN....but barring someone from showing their ass because you disagree with it is wrong.

 

It breaks my heart.

 

edit: neglected to add...the deleting of this board and all the vile petty things said in it feels a lot like "Destroying the evidence" to me.

[CronoDragoon]

If you took the time to read the posts, you would see that psuden was talking about banning someone else, not me as was referenced in your post.

I was merely pointing out that offensive or disagreeable speech should be protected, not banned.

Unless of course it takes a personal note or threatening tone, much like your response.

Calling someone willfully stupid or ignorant, even with a pseudo-retraction, is taking the discussion to a personal level, it is offensive, and reportable.

Now, got some more snark?

 

You'll notice no edit in my post. The example was meant to be an example. In all honesty, we've got a month left and I have zero warning points, so if I wanted to call you stupid, I would.

 

But of course, I always have snark, if that's what you want. You should really make up your mind whether you want to report hostility or not, since you bafflingly profess a desire to protect offensive posts, including insults, while trying to shame me for insults I didn't actually make by reminding me of moderation. It seems we all should agree that hostility should be banned, so I'm confused why you objected to psuden's post in the first place. Well, perhaps not, because confusing legitimate criticism with trash posting seems like a natural pasttime on the BSN. There are plenty of posters on this board who've voiced criticism over the years and not been subject to any moderation whatsoever, which deflates the "getting banned for dissenting opinion" myth into a flaccid corpse to be tossed into the bin with all other "disgruntled delusion" balloons. It's a frustrating truism that the people most likely to express terse, evidence-less hostility are also those least likely to realize how bad their opinion looks to others, whereas those with a shred of introspection are also those most likely to lay out their opinion with support in a polite, professional manner. Asking trash posters to understand the difference between destructive and constructive criticism would be like asking Sauron if he maybe has tried not craving power.

 

Of course, there are posters that will flame people here for posting any dissenting opinion, and they are just as bad as all the others. The above applies to them equally. But guess what? They have warning points, too. I'd encourage people to pause a moment and ask precisely what kind of opinion is worth protecting under the "criticism" umbrella, and which can be safely discarded. I feel like one of the few posters who actually likes posts I disagree with, just because they are presented in a coherent and understandable fashion. And the fact that I still see a lot of posts I disagree with despite my block list being a long one should I think help me when I say that I always argue in good faith.

 

Anyway, this is the Windbag Edition of the sentiment that offensive speech shouldn't be (and isn't) protected by corporate entities simply because it's speech, largely because there are other posts that aren't offensive and often correlate with more intelligent dialogue anyway.

[vbibbi]

It seems we all should agree that hostility should be banned, so I'm confused why you objected to psuden's post in the first place. Well, perhaps not, because confusing legitimate criticism with trash posting seems like a natural pasttime on the BSN.

 
Personally, I agree that hostility should be banned, but I'm not seeing how you then condone psduen's post:

 

Obviously I'm not Bioware, but I would have silenced people like you a long, long time ago. I don't have patience for intentional and persistent hostility.

His tone is just as hostile and aggressive as what he's responding to. So two wrongs make a right here?

 

And I'm picking on him in this instance not directly for that post, which is fairly mild, but because his posts are consistently hostile to their recipients. It's just that his posts are pro-Bioware, so because he's not criticizing Bioware is he permitted to be as hostile and aggressive as he wants?

[AlanC9]

Hmm.... how should pdusen have written that, though? The substance of the post is that Spectr61 deserves to be banned, and if pdusen was a mod he would have done it

[ApocAlypsE007]

I doubt it has anything to do directly to ME:A and the high toxic levels in here. EA is gearing to close Bioware, too many things pointing in that way. In this state I would be happy just to see ME:A get released. The forum format is still active and kicking, case in point BNet forums and Unreal Tournament 4 forums.

[CronoDragoon]

 His tone is just as hostile and aggressive as what he's responding to. So two wrongs make a right here?

 

And I'm picking on him in this instance not directly for that post, which is fairly mild, but because his posts are consistently hostile to their recipients. It's just that his posts are pro-Bioware, so because he's not criticizing Bioware is he permitted to be as hostile and aggressive as he wants?

 

I don't agree that particular post is as hostile or aggressive, though I agree he can be hostile with other posters.

 

Having said that, no, pro-BioWare posters aren't permitted to be as hostile and aggressive as they want, and if you read the end of my previous post you will see I have already addressed this angle specifically. I wouldn't be surprised if psuden has warning points and I know he's had posts removed/edited in the past. I know other posters who were on the "pro" side of one Bio game or another we were addressing have similar interactions with BioWare moderation here. I think this was before your time, but perhaps the most infamous case of an obnoxious poster being multi-banned on dupe accounts (outside of David) was a dude named Auld Wulf who used to belittle people who didn't like the ME3 endings with very long posts shotgunning insults everywhere.

 

That there's a substantive bias in moderation on this site towards more pro-BioWare offensive posts is a myth that doesn't hold up. Psuden's controlled condescension towards others may not get moderated, but so aren't similar posts directed against him (as you can see by Silvery's earlier posts standing). The site at large has an extremely generous moderation policy, which obviously is a mistake on any forum that you want to have a good environment. This is why the Dragon Age subreddit is currently the best place to discuss Dragon Age, because it has strict moderation. Lax moderation leads to confirmation bias wherein when someone does get moderated, they think they are being unjustly singled out.

[pdusen]

Well, since we're discussing me, I can confirm that I have received warning points and had posts removed for being overly hostile by mods.

My main problem is that when I see people intentionally spreading hostility, I tend to want to point out what they're doing. Then when I see those same people doing it again and again, it starts to irritate me. Sometimes I get overly hostile about it myself.

When that's not happening, I mostly just lurk.

[Spectr61]

You'll notice no edit in my post. The example was meant to be an example. In all honesty, we've got a month left and I have zero warning points, so if I wanted to call you stupid, I would.
 
But of course, I always have snark, if that's what you want. You should really make up your mind whether you want to report hostility or not, since you bafflingly profess a desire to protect offensive posts, including insults, while trying to shame me for insults I didn't actually make by reminding me of moderation. It seems we all should agree that hostility should be banned, so I'm confused why you objected to psuden's post in the first place. Well, perhaps not, because confusing legitimate criticism with trash posting seems like a natural pasttime on the BSN. There are plenty of posters on this board who've voiced criticism over the years and not been subject to any moderation whatsoever, which deflates the "getting banned for dissenting opinion" myth into a flaccid corpse to be tossed into the bin with all other "disgruntled delusion" balloons. It's a frustrating truism that the people most likely to express terse, evidence-less hostility are also those least likely to realize how bad their opinion looks to others, whereas those with a shred of introspection are also those most likely to lay out their opinion with support in a polite, professional manner. Asking trash posters to understand the difference between destructive and constructive criticism would be like asking Sauron if he maybe has tried not craving power.
 
Of course, there are posters that will flame people here for posting any dissenting opinion, and they are just as bad as all the others. The above applies to them equally. But guess what? They have warning points, too. I'd encourage people to pause a moment and ask precisely what kind of opinion is worth protecting under the "criticism" umbrella, and which can be safely discarded. I feel like one of the few posters who actually likes posts I disagree with, just because they are presented in a coherent and understandable fashion. And the fact that I still see a lot of posts I disagree with despite my block list being a long one should I think help me when I say that I always argue in good faith.
 
Anyway, this is the Windbag Edition of the sentiment that offensive speech shouldn't be (and isn't) protected by corporate entities simply because it's speech, largely because there are other posts that aren't offensive and often correlate with more intelligent dialogue anyway.

Brevity is a virtue imo.

Offensive posts should be protected. One's point of view; offensive, hostile, illogical, etc, etc are merely differing viewpoints.

Descending to the personal, e.g. calling someone stupid, is an example of behavior that should not.

I myself also add telling others what to do or think in this category, but that's just my point of view.

[CronoDragoon]

Offensive posts should be protected. One's point of view; offensive, hostile, illogical, etc, etc are merely differing viewpoints.

 

This position is indefensible. Illogical arguments are inherently unworthy compared to logical arguments (unless you recognize they are illogical and are making an emotional claim, at which point is ceases to be an argument anyway). That's how argumentation works. Hostility you apparently still can't make up your mind about, since you say personal insults aren't ok but hostility is. Which is it? And as for offensive posts, it's ridiculous that you claim they are just another viewpoint. Now, we can argue about what constitutes an offensive post, but recognizing they exist and still wanting to protect them is not a policy that any respectable board even entertains. This isn't a first amendment thing. I have a feeling you also subscribe to the "why are you being intolerant of intolerance" line of thinking, which is a mistake as it's a false equivalence. Extreme moral relativists are dinosaurs of the ethical field.

 

Like, just to be clear on the implications of your position, you're saying I could make a post saying "Kill All Black People!" and Moderator Spectr61 would say "Whelp, just his opinion! No problem here!" But if I called a poster an idiot, I'd get my post edited or removed. I really hope that's not your position, but it's the consequence of what you've put forward.

[Spectr61]

More mind reading?

And, in the realm of opinion, whose matters?

[vbibbi]

Hmm.... how should pdusen have written that, though? The substance of the post is that Spectr61 deserves to be banned, and if pdusen was a mod he would have done it

 

I personally view any non-moderator or Bioware employee saying "I think you deserve to be banned and if I had the power I would" as hostile. It's not a direct insult or personal attack, but effectively saying "I don't think you deserve to be here" is not a friendly statement or one seeking a conversation.

 

So... IMO psuden shouldn't have written it at all.

 

Well, since we're discussing me, I can confirm that I have received warning points and had posts removed for being overly hostile by mods.

My main problem is that when I see people intentionally spreading hostility, I tend to want to point out what they're doing. Then when I see those same people doing it again and again, it starts to irritate me. Sometimes I get overly hostile about it myself.

When that's not happening, I mostly just lurk.

 

I fully own up that I have been too snarky or unnecessarily rude at times, and I'm not proud of those types of posts of mine. Usually done in the heat of the moment or retaliation for when someone directly attacks me. Still not normally called for. And I apologize for calling you out, especially since it's not really in direct relation to anything. "talking" behind someone's back publicly is not the best way to handle things.

[goishen]

Right, but he doesn't have tjat power and never will.

IMO, psuden's post was fine. We can all be snarky with each other.

[Chardonney]

I've been away for awhile and this is what I'm coming back to? Closing down the forum? What a sad, sad day. Not nice, BioWare, not nice at all.

[crazyrabbits]

Conal Pierce said the decision to shut down the BSN wasn't a money issue, while Chris Priestly revealed that certain unnamed higher ups in Bioware had wanted to shutter the BSN after DA2 and ME3's ending controversy, while he fought to keep it going.

That gives the impression that those unnamed higher ups finally got their way, and this has more to do with trying to stifle criticism of Bioware by removing any central hub to discuss its products.

Once again, Bioware utterly fails at PR. In four years the company learned **** all.

 

Of course Priestly fought to keep it. It was his and Woo's personal fiefdom. They ran around unchecked, and got to lock off anything they wanted with no repercussions. Even after they were seemingly let go from the company, they still hung around like a moldy sock. Take a look at Priestly's comments mentioned recently on their Facebook page - he hasn't been with the company in 3 years, and he'll still s***post anybody, even if they're not criticizing the company.

 

To be fair, though, Bioware has basically been using EA's playbook since 2012. I seem to recall that they parachuted one of EA's top PR reps, who essentially locked down the company and kept them from saying anything at conventions. Questions were screened in panels, they kept the narrative tight and focused (cast blame away from themselves and onto the "toxic" community), and they've run with it ever since.

 

I see the closure of this forum purely as a pre-emptive chainsaw to quell any criticism or negative impact for Andromeda before it releases. They could have fixed things by clearing the decks and starting an Andromeda-only board 3 years ago, but it's too late for that.

[goishen]

Of course Priestly fought to keep it. It was his and Woo's personal fiefdom. They ran around unchecked, and got to lock off anything they wanted with no repercussions. Even after they were seemingly let go from the company, they still hung around like a moldy sock. Take a look at Priestly's comments mentioned recently on their Facebook page - he hasn't been with the company in 3 years, and he'll still s***post anybody, even if they're not criticizing the company.

 

To be fair, though, Bioware has basically been using EA's playbook since 2012. I seem to recall that they parachuted one of EA's top PR reps, who essentially locked down the company and kept them from saying anything at conventions. Questions were screened in panels, they kept the narrative tight and focused (cast blame away from themselves and onto the "toxic" community), and they've run with it ever since.

 

I see the closure of this forum purely as a pre-emptive chainsaw to quell any criticism or negative impact for Andromeda before it releases. They could have fixed things by clearing the decks and starting an Andromeda-only board 3 years ago, but it's too late for that.

 

 

Right, but see, it's not for the money that the other company brings in.  It's for the experience that other company has and you don't that you bring them in.  So BioWare is sitting there going, "Gee, we really need a PR person."  EA says, "Hey, we've got a PR person.  Bazing!"  Kind'a like with the engine. "Hey, we need a newer, more cost effective engine."  "Hey, look at this newer, more cost effective engine!  Bazing!"  What BioWare adds to EA's lineup is a set of RPG games and a set of games that tell a story, not until the past few years have I seen any company do.

 

It's not all that difficult to come up with.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I personally view any non-moderator or Bioware employee saying "I think you deserve to be banned and if I had the power I would" as hostile. It's not a direct insult or personal attack, but effectively saying "I don't think you deserve to be here" is not a friendly statement or one seeking a conversation.

So... IMO psuden shouldn't have written it at all.


I fully own up that I have been too snarky or unnecessarily rude at times, and I'm not proud of those types of posts of mine. Usually done in the heat of the moment or retaliation for when someone directly attacks me. Still not normally called for. And I apologize for calling you out, especially since it's not really in direct relation to anything. "talking" behind someone's back publicly is not the best way to handle things.

I'm bored and can't sleep so I'm going to add my unsolicited two coppers. I apologize in advance for any poor formatting issues due to me only having access to a phone to rrspond with.

So I'm going to start with a "personal attack" by admitting a small feeling of amusement at seeing two people who I consider among my least favourite posters arguing.

Should pdusen or vbibbi care what I, some random poster thinks of them? No of course not.

This is more a deconstruction of my own thoughts rather than a criticism of any of you. Like I said.. bored and can't sleep.

So to the point. Pdusen I've had no interaction with you, mainly because I don't see the point. One you don't seem to express your own opinions, just criticize others. And two, you do make some good points.

Vbibbi on the other hand, how I hate you.. with the fiery passion of 10000 burning suns. Mostly because of how hard your name is to type. Nah I'm just kidding. I've disagreed with you in the past but in this thread at least you've been entirely reasonable and if I was on my PC I'd have given you several likes. I'm on this phone with its crappy interface though so if you are the sort of person who gets warm fuzzy feelings when random people like your posts, feel free.

Now for the bad part though. Now, I bring this up not to dicuss this topic but to aid in explaining the actual topic in this thread. That of censorship.

I've disliked posts of yours on'social justice' topics because you use what I view as illogical reasoning in dismissing other opinions. You do this by assigning negative characteristics to a poster who is disagreeing with you to dismiss or belittle their opinion.

But here's the thing. Everyone on the Internet does this. We all think our own position or opinion is unassalable and evertone who disagrees with us must be a bad person. They must be immoral savages because they disagree with my dogmatic belief system!!

But if we do this we are wrong. We take offense at the opinions of others because we don't like our own opinions challenged. Some people reside in an echo chamber where they never have anyone disagree with them, so when they step out of it their first reaction is to assume the other person must be one of those evil folk my echo chamber warned me about!

So people read offense into another opinion that perhaps wasn't intended. So offense is subjective. And banning speech you personally find offensive is wrong and flat out unworkable. It also gives the impression that you think only your voice should be heard.

Now obviously there are offensive things that should be considered by all to be offensive. The example ,kill all black people ' given above is one. We should never solicit hate towards another group baseD on their race, religion, gender or any other way you can group a population.

But here's the thing if that is objective then it should be applied evenly regardless of your personal opinion of that group. The phrase 'kill all white men' is just as wrong for the same reason. Regardless of what ones echo chamber says about white men.

My disagreements on this boarD stem from a ditressing number of people who don't hold this objective view. But should their voices be silenced because I disagree with them?

Of course not. They will just retreat back to their echo chamber to be told how 'right' they were. If we engage these people in discussion of their views, on the other hand. We have at least some slim hope that they will question the echo chamber and realise at least why others disagree. Maybe even realise that the other 'side' isn't so evil after all.

[goishen]

It kind'a makes me wonder, who's gonna be next to shut down their boards?  Blizzard?  And a sigh of relief was heard from everyone, everywhere.  As the IQ's of everyone was drastically improved.  As everyone got up the next morning, "Howdy neighbor!  No more morons today!"

[BatarianBob]

I will definitely cancel all my plans to plan my vacation around MEA's release.

A good idea for any game. Video games are for weekends. Vacations are for real life.

[Red Panda]

the more i have been thinking about the closure of BSN...the more upset i get. This place is TOXIC....and that Retake horsecrap made it even more so. I had assumed that things would die down...but it hasnt. The pure BILE that is spewed on this board is disgusting...so i see why BW wants to separate from the negativity.

 

I dont think Twitter is the place to go as a primary source to get info from BW. Twitter only allows "shiny happy" speech....and the speech they DEEM fitting. I dont agree with that..at all.  I disagree with the BS TOXIC STUFF here on the BSN....but barring someone from showing their ass because you disagree with it is wrong.

 

It breaks my heart.

 

edit: neglected to add...the deleting of this board and all the vile petty things said in it feels a lot like "Destroying the evidence" to me.

At least there's reddit, but that carries less obligations with it.

[vbibbi]

I'm bored and can't sleep so I'm going to add my unsolicited two coppers. I apologize in advance for any poor formatting issues due to me only having access to a phone to rrspond with.

So I'm going to start with a "personal attack" by admitting a small feeling of amusement at seeing two people who I consider among my least favourite posters arguing.

Should pdusen or vbibbi care what I, some random poster thinks of them? No of course not.

This is more a deconstruction of my own thoughts rather than a criticism of any of you. Like I said.. bored and can't sleep.

So to the point. Pdusen I've had no interaction with you, mainly because I don't see the point. One you don't seem to express your own opinions, just criticize others. And two, you do make some good points.

Vbibbi on the other hand, how I hate you.. with the fiery passion of 10000 burning suns. Mostly because of how hard your name is to type. Nah I'm just kidding. I've disagreed with you in the past but in this thread at least you've been entirely reasonable and if I was on my PC I'd have given you several likes. I'm on this phone with its crappy interface though so if you are the sort of person who gets warm fuzzy feelings when random people like your posts, feel free.

Now for the bad part though. Now, I bring this up not to dicuss this topic but to aid in explaining the actual topic in this thread. That of censorship.

I've disliked posts of yours on'social justice' topics because you use what I view as illogical reasoning in dismissing other opinions. You do this by assigning negative characteristics to a poster who is disagreeing with you to dismiss or belittle their opinion.

But here's the thing. Everyone on the Internet does this. We all think our own position or opinion is unassalable and evertone who disagrees with us must be a bad person. They must be immoral savages because they disagree with my dogmatic belief system!!

But if we do this we are wrong. We take offense at the opinions of others because we don't like our own opinions challenged. Some people reside in an echo chamber where they never have anyone disagree with them, so when they step out of it their first reaction is to assume the other person must be one of those evil folk my echo chamber warned me about!

So people read offense into another opinion that perhaps wasn't intended. So offense is subjective. And banning speech you personally find offensive is wrong and flat out unworkable. It also gives the impression that you think only your voice should be heard.

Now obviously there are offensive things that should be considered by all to be offensive. The example ,kill all black people ' given above is one. We should never solicit hate towards another group baseD on their race, religion, gender or any other way you can group a population.

But here's the thing if that is objective then it should be applied evenly regardless of your personal opinion of that group. The phrase 'kill all white men' is just as wrong for the same reason. Regardless of what ones echo chamber says about white men.

My disagreements on this boarD stem from a ditressing number of people who don't hold this objective view. But should their voices be silenced because I disagree with them?

Of course not. They will just retreat back to their echo chamber to be told how 'right' they were. If we engage these people in discussion of their views, on the other hand. We have at least some slim hope that they will question the echo chamber and realise at least why others disagree. Maybe even realise that the other 'side' isn't so evil after all.

 

So that I don't come across as the complete hypocrite you're painting me as, I agree with much of your post regarding staying in an echo chamber and demonizing those of dissenting opinions. And while your "hatred" of me is (I hope) satirical, the general snarky tone of your post does no favors to supporting your argument that posters here should be objective in allowing differing thoughts and opinions as long as they're not outright bigotry without vilifying the poster.

 

You dislike my posts because I'm "assigning negative characteristics to a poster who is disagreeing with you to dismiss or belittle their opinion" and therefore you're assigning a negative opinion of me because you disagree with me?

[pdusen]

So to the point. Pdusen I've had no interaction with you, mainly because I don't see the point. One you don't seem to express your own opinions, just criticize others. And two, you do make some good points.

Eh. I'll take it.

[AlanC9]

More mind reading?

And, in the realm of opinion, whose matters?

These are both non sequiturs

[KotorEffect3]

Bottom line is bsn had forum cancer.  It mutated into something it could never recover from in the period of 2010-2013.  Too many cliques, too many banners and sigs, too many memes, and too many gifs.  They tried reformatting it a couple of years ago but the damage was done.  I am not holding by breath but what I am hoping they are doing is just killing off this old forum and then plan on launching a new forum just prior to MEA's release.  LIke I said in an earlier post they should have taken down this forum after ME 3's dlc cycle ended (so maybe a month after they released citadel) and launched a new one before DAI came out.  That would have been a good year in a half.  Plenty of time for the cancerous elements of the forum community to move on and find a different forum to infect.

[ApocAlypsE007]

It kind'a makes me wonder, who's gonna be next to shut down their boards?  Blizzard?  And a sigh of relief was heard from everyone, everywhere.  As the IQ's of everyone was drastically improved.  As everyone got up the next morning, "Howdy neighbor!  No more morons today!"

Blizzard isn't anywhere near the verge of dying unlike Bioware.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

So that I don't come across as the complete hypocrite you're painting me as, I agree with much of your post regarding staying in an echo chamber and demonizing those of dissenting opinions. And while your "hatred" of me is (I hope) satirical, the general snarky tone of your post does no favors to supporting your argument that posters here should be objective in allowing differing thoughts and opinions as long as they're not outright bigotry without vilifying the poster.

You dislike my posts because I'm "assigning negative characteristics to a poster who is disagreeing with you to dismiss or belittle their opinion" and therefore you're assigning a negative opinion of me because you disagree with me?

Most of what I said about you specifically ws indeed intended as good natured teasing. Sorry if it came across as something more unpleasant.

The last couple of paragraphs were not directed to you personally, but to everyone including myself. We all have the possible tendency to be hypocrites.

If you are truly curious about my specific opinions of some of your specific posts of the past I could oblige but probably better to take it to pm's. If you wish to do so please bear in mind I am travelling and may not respond as much as I would like until i get back on the 17th.

In any case happy posting while it lasts.


Reading back it was only the two paragraphs in the middle that referred to you specifically. I did ramble on after that. Lol. Hope that helps.