As to feedback and clarification, you already got it. Branflakes posted his feedback and clarification earlier in this thread.
Then only a single question remains.
Could 'naming and shaming' be explained away in our community guidelines so we can prevent another thread like this? A notice in the rules honestly couldn't be too much to ask for, given the community feedback so far.
____GREAT LEADERS LET THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
you are nitpicking on semantics and/or a self-serving request that was very clearly explained to you that it is not going to happen, and very clearly outlined as to why.
Branflakes told you in this very thread... along with many many of the other posters, again...in this same thread.
you just seem to be choosing to ignore it in order to keep a perception of doubt flowing.
I quote Branflakes for your ease of reference:
"As noted by others, "naming and shaming" falls under the rules of 'Flaming and/or Trolling' and 'Harassing Material'. Also, don't forget these lines from the rules: Interpretation and enforcement of the Rules and Policies is at the sole and exclusive discretion of PWE. and PWE has the final say on all aspects of this community. If you have a problem, you may make a complaint to PWE directly through our support site, and not publicly on the website. Creating threads or posts that question or reference administrative decisions or potential administrative decisions, such as post removals and thread closures, is not permitted.
Lastly, we will never reveal information about actions taken on user, nor provide reports on moderation taken -- this would violate their and other users' privacy."
so let it go...... it's very clear, and these facts has been explained to you numerous times.
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
I'm sure there's got to be a link somewhere to the Rules of Conduct, but the only things I can find searching for them are outdated links from archived posts. I scanned all through the ToS and Privacy Policy, but don't see them there, at least not as such. Can someone post the appropriate link? Maybe that would help with the debates. I'm rather surprised that they aren't stickied at the top of the Forum.
eta: the Posting Guidelines aren't quite what I was looking for.
"Susse-thrai" had been the name bestowed upon her, half in anger, half in affection, by her old crew on Bloodwing; the keen-nosed, cranky, wily old she-beast, never less dangerous than when you thought her defenseless, and always growing new teeth far back in her throat to replace the old ones broken in biting out the last foe's heart. Romulans: left one homeworld, lost another, third time's the charm?
Pardon? No. I was implying that it would be blackmail for a hypothetical fleet to hypothetically withhold favors from the community unless they treat your fleet like a special snowflake.
How is withholding favors blackmail? Fleets aren't required to provide the general community with a damn thing. And the internal fleet leadership is entitled to run their fleets any way thy like, and players are free to quit and join another fleet if they don't like how their current fleet is being run.
I'm kind of curious what he means by that, too. I mean, I think I'm not a member of the fleet(s) Leviathan probably has a problem with. But I do an awful lot of "favors" in the form of starbase invites, boff training, heck I give away reasonably valuable stuff sometimes when fleet members need it.
But at some point every day I have to cut it off so I can go run STFs or something, or, you know, go to bed. Am I supposed to feel some sort of obligation no one has told me about yet?
I'm sure Branflakes would find that Bluegeek prank pretty funny, though. He's actually a pretty forgiving and understanding guy in my experience.
What "Bluegeek prank"? What did I miss? PM me, if it's not appropriate to post here.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
What "Bluegeek prank"? What did I miss? PM me, if it's not appropriate to post here.
Ok, found the link. I would take a very dim view of that kind of thing, actually.
BranFlakes is a very easy-going guy in general. Me, not so much.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Pretty obvious flaming, if you ask me. Oh no! Our public forums have been exposed!
It's a shame that a thread that has had a good proportion of sensible and respectful discussion of a sensitive subject has got derailed somewhat.
It's clear to me there are two takeaways.
The first one is one I'm pretty sure we can all agree on......well, almost all.
Naming and shaming is wrong. End of.
Any system that tries to make an end run around this point is subject to abuse.
We've signed up to ToS that explicitally prohibits it, we've debated how it works, we've even seen the inevitable problems it brings up....because no system is perfectly suited to all circumstance.
But, overwhelmingly, when you balance all the concerns any system that allows naming and shaming brings more problems than it solves.
Aint gonna happen. Shouldn't happen.
Point two may have less support, but it's clear to me that one of the reasons this subject keeps coming up is that what happens after someone makes a complaint is murky.
One can only know indirectly what actions, if any, have occurred.
There are excellent reasons, all part of the naming/shaming debate, about why that is.
That is never going to change, see point one.
However, the argument only really holds water in the particular.
If one instead applies it to the general case then individual privacy is not a concern.
Nobody has their privacy breached if, every six months, Cryptic released a simple statement that said something like, "Harrasment complaints lodged: X, complaints upheld: Y, range of sanctions applied, A, B and C....etc"
All that does is show that complaints are being looked at. It provides a tiny and anonymous piece of feedback.
While it wont stop all those so colourfully described as the special snowflakes, it will remove from their position the only piece of solid argument they have.
That there is no feedback from complaints.
While nothing is ever pefect.....(see preamble).....I do belive that a nod towards transparency can be made while not breaching anyones right to privacy.
ETA on review it could be inferred that I was, in some way, calling Nabreeki someone who was derailing the thread.
The opposite thought was on my mind, as I merely thought they had succinctly pinpointed the problem.
Yeah I change my position on singling out an immoral fleet... Even if it is a public service (if someone does it with best intentions)....it's still just your word against someone else's.
And yeah I think it would cause problems such as vigilantism...and then there are those who might abuse it, just for fun... You know there are people out there who would do this...
So, yeah I change my mind....even if your trying to do the right thing...naming and shaming is not the proper way to get a resolution.
You'd probably be better off/ and get better results by just mailing the Fleet Head a friendly polite notice of immorality.
Most Fleets will have some of the founders review such grievences.
For the most part I think they try to be as fair as possible.
you are nitpicking on semantics and/or a self-serving request that was very clearly explained to you that it is not going to happen, and very clearly outlined as to why.
Branflakes told you in this very thread... along with many many of the other posters, again...in this same thread.
First off, Branflakes has already told you what naming and shaming falls under in the guidelines. Repeatedly asking the question and rephrasing it differently isn't going to change his answer no matter how much you dislike the answer he has given.
You both seem to mistake my desire for absolute rules clarification for ease of reference in a single official thread, the very Community Guidelines stickied thread, for me fishing for accolades. I am not here to see Branflakes adding in the definition of 'naming and shaming' under the rules with a pretty pink bow and a "thank you kindly, A Cross Cat, for putting this to light" notice.
I am simply asking for clarification within the Community Guidelines. Pure and simple.
One shouldn't and one needn't be pointed to any other thread than the (stickied) rules. Certainly not to a non-staff/moderation user-created thread.
____GREAT LEADERS LET THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
....Repeatedly asking the question and rephrasing it differently isn't going to change his answer no matter how much you dislike the answer he has given......
hey look .... it just happened again too .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
( makes me think of a hyper-inflated tennis ball....keeps bouncing back no matter how many times you hit it with the 'common sense racket' )
.
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
The naming and shaming policy as it stands is just fine.
Why?
Call them out for what behavior exactly? What kind of behavior and or proof would justify a public linching? Because let's be blunt, that's what it would turn into.
Could you imagine what would happen if someone simply makes a mistake in a STF and someone felt justified to call this person out for it publicly ?
And what recourse could the wrongly accused take after they've been named and shamed on these forums ? Imagine the ramifications that person might face? What will happen if fleet leaders were go on these forums, see someone accused of this or that and then have this person apply to their fleet, or try join a team mission?
Do you have any idea, how out of hand this could get? The forums would be a blaze with this one calling out that one for any number of valid and non valid complaints, and regardless of validity, or even innocence, the damage would be done, because that person would become a pariah in game.
What will happen is that as tempers flare and posts become more hostile, the Mods will be forced to take out the Ban stick which will further inflame the involved parties.
IIRC, the volunteer mods don't even have a ban stick. Not even a ban twig. So I think what would happen is Cryptic would actually be forced to hire some more moderators.
Somehow I don't see that happening.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
IIRC, the volunteer mods don't even have a ban stick. Not even a ban twig.
True, dat.
I have no problem making entire threads disappear if they need disappearing, though. And I am certainly able to recommend infractions where infractions are due.
The policies that govern the forums are not mine. But I accept responsibility for knowing how to correctly interpret them and apply them.
After being a Mod here for some time, my experience is that the policies are reasonably complete and they're flexible enough to accomplish the goal of keeping the forums focused on the game and keeping the melodrama and abuse down to a minimum.
If you read the policies carefully, a few general principles become obvious.
Number two on the list is Respect for Others. Respect peoples' dignity, respect their opinions, respect the law. Naming and Shaming is a direct violation of that principle, aside from the specific rules that BranFlakes cited.
Principle number three is that the forums should be a place where people generally feel welcome to express their honest, respectful opinions about the game without being hassled or made to feel uncomfortable. Naming and Shaming is a direct violation of that principle, too.
What the forum rules are NOT is a document that can be used to extort any particular behavior out of PWE. Because principle number one is that this forum belongs to PWE and serves their interests. Any thread or post that runs contrary to their interests is allowed to exist only through their sufferage.
Fortunately for us, the powers that be are pretty tolerant as long as things don't get out of hand. They're not interested in censorship except as necessary to enforce the forum rules, which exist to prevent problems that tend to pop up in any forum.
Now, as it has already been pointed out that Naming and Shaming is inherently prohibited under the current form of the rules, and by the clear statement of the Community Manager, I won't belabor the point any further.
In fact, I'm left wondering what's left to discuss about this?
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Nothing more. If two moderators say that no further alterations or clarifications are required, I'll happily leave it at that.
Just to clarify something here, and then I'll bow out.
I am a Mod, but I don't work for PWE. I'm a volunteer. Just another player in all other respects.
BranFlakes, the guy who responded earlier, is the Community Manager for STO. He is not only a Mod, he is PWE's official voice on these forums and generally the last word about how the forum rules get interpreted and enforced. And if he's unclear about something, he knows who to go ask to get the right, official answer.
When he talks, he knows of what he speaks and he's not often wrong.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Naming and shaming is much more personal/provocaive and if it were allowed it would be like standing in a room with poor ventilation that is filled with dynamite & soaked in gasoline, and striking a match.
Or, to quote the should-be-sainted-Terry.
Standing in copper armour, on a hill, in a thunderstorm, with one foot in a basin of water, shouting - All Gods are TRIBBLE!
Comments
Then only a single question remains.
Could 'naming and shaming' be explained away in our community guidelines so we can prevent another thread like this? A notice in the rules honestly couldn't be too much to ask for, given the community feedback so far.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Branflakes told you in this very thread... along with many many of the other posters, again...in this same thread.
you just seem to be choosing to ignore it in order to keep a perception of doubt flowing.
I quote Branflakes for your ease of reference:
"As noted by others, "naming and shaming" falls under the rules of 'Flaming and/or Trolling' and 'Harassing Material'. Also, don't forget these lines from the rules: Interpretation and enforcement of the Rules and Policies is at the sole and exclusive discretion of PWE. and PWE has the final say on all aspects of this community. If you have a problem, you may make a complaint to PWE directly through our support site, and not publicly on the website. Creating threads or posts that question or reference administrative decisions or potential administrative decisions, such as post removals and thread closures, is not permitted.
Lastly, we will never reveal information about actions taken on user, nor provide reports on moderation taken -- this would violate their and other users' privacy."
so let it go...... it's very clear, and these facts has been explained to you numerous times.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Why are you threatening me with blackmail?
eta: the Posting Guidelines aren't quite what I was looking for.
Romulans: left one homeworld, lost another, third time's the charm?
Pardon? No. I was implying that it would be blackmail for a hypothetical fleet to hypothetically withhold favors from the community unless they treat your fleet like a special snowflake.
I thought you got that but I see that you actually did think I was implying that I'd blackmail you.
I wanted to be clear that I wasn't.
I'm sure Branflakes would find that Bluegeek prank pretty funny, though. He's actually a pretty forgiving and understanding guy in my experience.
What's an anime hug pillow anyway?
I'm kind of curious what he means by that, too. I mean, I think I'm not a member of the fleet(s) Leviathan probably has a problem with. But I do an awful lot of "favors" in the form of starbase invites, boff training, heck I give away reasonably valuable stuff sometimes when fleet members need it.
But at some point every day I have to cut it off so I can go run STFs or something, or, you know, go to bed. Am I supposed to feel some sort of obligation no one has told me about yet?
What "Bluegeek prank"? What did I miss? PM me, if it's not appropriate to post here.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Ok, found the link. I would take a very dim view of that kind of thing, actually.
BranFlakes is a very easy-going guy in general. Me, not so much.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
It's a shame that a thread that has had a good proportion of sensible and respectful discussion of a sensitive subject has got derailed somewhat.
It's clear to me there are two takeaways.
The first one is one I'm pretty sure we can all agree on......well, almost all.
Naming and shaming is wrong. End of.
Any system that tries to make an end run around this point is subject to abuse.
We've signed up to ToS that explicitally prohibits it, we've debated how it works, we've even seen the inevitable problems it brings up....because no system is perfectly suited to all circumstance.
But, overwhelmingly, when you balance all the concerns any system that allows naming and shaming brings more problems than it solves.
Aint gonna happen. Shouldn't happen.
Point two may have less support, but it's clear to me that one of the reasons this subject keeps coming up is that what happens after someone makes a complaint is murky.
One can only know indirectly what actions, if any, have occurred.
There are excellent reasons, all part of the naming/shaming debate, about why that is.
That is never going to change, see point one.
However, the argument only really holds water in the particular.
If one instead applies it to the general case then individual privacy is not a concern.
Nobody has their privacy breached if, every six months, Cryptic released a simple statement that said something like, "Harrasment complaints lodged: X, complaints upheld: Y, range of sanctions applied, A, B and C....etc"
All that does is show that complaints are being looked at. It provides a tiny and anonymous piece of feedback.
While it wont stop all those so colourfully described as the special snowflakes, it will remove from their position the only piece of solid argument they have.
That there is no feedback from complaints.
While nothing is ever pefect.....(see preamble).....I do belive that a nod towards transparency can be made while not breaching anyones right to privacy.
ETA on review it could be inferred that I was, in some way, calling Nabreeki someone who was derailing the thread.
The opposite thought was on my mind, as I merely thought they had succinctly pinpointed the problem.
Apologies for any confusion
And yeah I think it would cause problems such as vigilantism...and then there are those who might abuse it, just for fun... You know there are people out there who would do this...
So, yeah I change my mind....even if your trying to do the right thing...naming and shaming is not the proper way to get a resolution.
You'd probably be better off/ and get better results by just mailing the Fleet Head a friendly polite notice of immorality.
Most Fleets will have some of the founders review such grievences.
For the most part I think they try to be as fair as possible.
You both seem to mistake my desire for absolute rules clarification for ease of reference in a single official thread, the very Community Guidelines stickied thread, for me fishing for accolades. I am not here to see Branflakes adding in the definition of 'naming and shaming' under the rules with a pretty pink bow and a "thank you kindly, A Cross Cat, for putting this to light" notice.
I am simply asking for clarification within the Community Guidelines. Pure and simple.
One shouldn't and one needn't be pointed to any other thread than the (stickied) rules. Certainly not to a non-staff/moderation user-created thread.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
hey look .... it just happened again too .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
( makes me think of a hyper-inflated tennis ball....keeps bouncing back no matter how many times you hit it with the 'common sense racket' )
.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Why?
Call them out for what behavior exactly? What kind of behavior and or proof would justify a public linching? Because let's be blunt, that's what it would turn into.
Could you imagine what would happen if someone simply makes a mistake in a STF and someone felt justified to call this person out for it publicly ?
And what recourse could the wrongly accused take after they've been named and shamed on these forums ? Imagine the ramifications that person might face? What will happen if fleet leaders were go on these forums, see someone accused of this or that and then have this person apply to their fleet, or try join a team mission?
Do you have any idea, how out of hand this could get? The forums would be a blaze with this one calling out that one for any number of valid and non valid complaints, and regardless of validity, or even innocence, the damage would be done, because that person would become a pariah in game.
IIRC, the volunteer mods don't even have a ban stick. Not even a ban twig. So I think what would happen is Cryptic would actually be forced to hire some more moderators.
Somehow I don't see that happening.
True, dat.
I have no problem making entire threads disappear if they need disappearing, though. And I am certainly able to recommend infractions where infractions are due.
The policies that govern the forums are not mine. But I accept responsibility for knowing how to correctly interpret them and apply them.
After being a Mod here for some time, my experience is that the policies are reasonably complete and they're flexible enough to accomplish the goal of keeping the forums focused on the game and keeping the melodrama and abuse down to a minimum.
If you read the policies carefully, a few general principles become obvious.
Number two on the list is Respect for Others. Respect peoples' dignity, respect their opinions, respect the law. Naming and Shaming is a direct violation of that principle, aside from the specific rules that BranFlakes cited.
Principle number three is that the forums should be a place where people generally feel welcome to express their honest, respectful opinions about the game without being hassled or made to feel uncomfortable. Naming and Shaming is a direct violation of that principle, too.
What the forum rules are NOT is a document that can be used to extort any particular behavior out of PWE. Because principle number one is that this forum belongs to PWE and serves their interests. Any thread or post that runs contrary to their interests is allowed to exist only through their sufferage.
Fortunately for us, the powers that be are pretty tolerant as long as things don't get out of hand. They're not interested in censorship except as necessary to enforce the forum rules, which exist to prevent problems that tend to pop up in any forum.
Now, as it has already been pointed out that Naming and Shaming is inherently prohibited under the current form of the rules, and by the clear statement of the Community Manager, I won't belabor the point any further.
In fact, I'm left wondering what's left to discuss about this?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Nothing more. If two moderators say that no further alterations or clarifications are required, I'll happily leave it at that.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Just to clarify something here, and then I'll bow out.
I am a Mod, but I don't work for PWE. I'm a volunteer. Just another player in all other respects.
BranFlakes, the guy who responded earlier, is the Community Manager for STO. He is not only a Mod, he is PWE's official voice on these forums and generally the last word about how the forum rules get interpreted and enforced. And if he's unclear about something, he knows who to go ask to get the right, official answer.
When he talks, he knows of what he speaks and he's not often wrong.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Or, to quote the should-be-sainted-Terry.
Standing in copper armour, on a hill, in a thunderstorm, with one foot in a basin of water, shouting - All Gods are TRIBBLE!