Pretty sure you can mention T5 connies, as long as you're not trying to hijack a thread.
*takes the bacon*
Peace out yo :P
*goes back to his desk and eats*
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
Datamining (ie hacking the client to find out what's upcoming) has never been allowed on the forums. Not to mention it's against the TOS and EULA. This goes back to beta. This isn't new, and it will never be allowed.
Guys drop the Tovan issue. It's done, over and nothing is going to be done with it. Gurluas your ideas weren't new, they have been discussed before and it's not going to happen so yes, your thread is closed because once again it's an issue that's been beaten into particles. Also, using this thread to continue the discussion as someone so nicely put is not going to happen either. This thread has zip to do with Tovan and if people start using threads to get Tovan issues out there they will be issued warnings for violating forum policy (which is basically ignoring a moderator and doing what they said not to do anyways). And no, that's not up for discussion.
Let us move on now kthx.
But the devs never denied applying another solution to Tovan, they only denied making him dismissable.
The FCT should only cover what has actually been outright refused by devs. Removing Tovan from the bridge was not covered at all.
When we have issues with the game it is important to speak up and let the devs know them. Silencing anything regarding Tovan is wrong, especially perfectly valid alternative solutions to dismissing.
Furthermore, I haven't seen any thread suggesting to remove him from the bridge as an alternative. Most just suggest adding superior operative or an extra character slot, which hardly fixes or addresses my issue.
This FCT needs clear moderation to avoid abuse and censorship.
My problem is not what is on the FCT, it's how what is on it is managed.
Will threads get locked now for mentioning a connie even if it has nothing to do with a T5 connie?
Will threads get locked now for even mentioning the disco ball even if it has nothing to do with it?
My thread got locked for mentioning Tovan even it has nothing to do about dismissing him, as I accept that isn't going to happen.
As always, the moderators will use their own judgement about when the FCT applies and when it doesn't.
As for the last, I am telling you that discussion of moderation activity is not allowed and further discussion will result in further moderation activity.
If you have an issue with a moderation decision, you submit a support ticket. That is the process.
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
Guys drop the Tovan issue. It's done, over and nothing is going to be done with it.
With all due respect Askray, you can censor us on this board(and only this board, as far as I know), but you can't order us to give up on an issue.
I'll agree to drop the subject on this thread and won't make any threads about it as long as it's on the FCT list, but my passion for this issue grows with every resistance I encounter.
But the devs never denied applying another solution to Tovan, they only denied making him dismissable.
The FCT should only cover what has actually been outright refused by devs. Removing Tovan from the bridge was not covered at all.
When we have issues with the game it is important to speak up and let the devs know them. Silencing anything regarding Tovan is wrong, especially perfectly valid alternative solutions to dismissing.
Furthermore, I haven't seen any thread suggesting to remove him from the bridge as an alternative. Most just suggest adding superior operative or an extra character slot, which hardly fixes or addresses my issue.
This FCT needs clear moderation to avoid abuse and censorship.
gurluas, you may just want to drop it for your own sake on these forums. im sure no one cares if there is one less here, but over something this silly? its not worth the infractions and a ban over.
With all due respect Askray, you can censor us on this board(and only this board, as far as I know), but you can't order us to give up on an issue.
I'll agree to drop the subject on this thread and won't make any threads about it as long as it's on the FCT list, but my passion for this issue grows with every resistance I encounter.
he can and you must accept the direction that is offered.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
How can he in-game then? On social media? On podcasts and Youtubes?
You are drawing out the debate right now, right here. Stop. You want to talk about it on Facebook, be my guest. Next warning will be in your inbox.
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
...but my passion for this issue grows with every resistance I encounter.
Would be cool if you had the same fire for things like, world peace, ending hunger, curing cancer, getting nutrient rich food into inner city communities, Detroit... etc, but toven?
anyway, try not to get banned, man, there's more important things to complain about, like engineering powers.
The question of Fed cloaks is kind of valid, the Treaty of Algeron is pretty much dead now that the Romulan Empire is all but destroyed and the new Romulan republic is allied with the Federation.
Actually it kind of isn't TBH. In all the years I've been watching these forums, they've only added one more ship that can cloak, the Avenger (two ships if you consider the Fleet Avenger to be a separate ship). They have never added battle cloak to any Fed ship. Yet there have been HOW many threads begging, pleading, asking, for exactly that?
(I'm not counting lockbox ships that can cloak)
I'm not saying this as some 'KDF fanboy' or 'whiner' that tends to get thrown around a lot in those types of threads, I'm just tired of seeing people constantly try and justify cloaking, and the threads usually devolve into nothing anyways.
Nothing has ever come about from those threads, yet people keep on making them over and over. Whatever reasons or justifications don't really matter. Nothing has happened, and as far as we know at this moment, nothing will be happening in the future about Feds gaining more cloaks.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
We're looking for official guidance as to whether to include Federation Battle Cloaking to the FCT.
We're pretty sure the Devs officially said no a long time ago, but we don't have official confirmation that it's a closed topic yet.
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
This seems like a remarkably heavy-handed measure to me. Tovan Khev is too heavily coded into the early Romulan storyline to be easily removed-alright....but there were plenty of suggestions that related to him that were less drastic and would get around this limitation...some as simple as keeping him from auto-assigning himself to away team or department head stations, or one of the longer-standing suggestions-letting him be dismissible after the episodes where he is required for are finished, locking players out from replaying those missions and supplying a NPC where he could be reclaimed from. That solution rather nicely sidestepped all of the supposed complications that making Tovan optional would have had. Apparently we can't even discuss alternate solutions to these issues, because now we aren't allowed to criticize Tovan Khev's mandatory nature whatsoever.
So it certainly seems like Topics the Dev's don't like being criticized on are being swept under the rug under the guise of being called "Dead Horses" rather than any sort of legitimate claim to all avenues of discussion being exhausted. This is NOT a development which I am in any way supportive of.
It is not, "badboy7869 said the word 'Connie'; close the thread!"
If it's derailing a thread, we have other rules to cover that situation.
We're talking about the creation of threads specifically to discuss issues that the FCT says are closed.
Now, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about Fed Battle Cloak. Apart from any other consideration, threads created to discuss that usually wind up as flame wars.
It could end up on the FCT for that reason alone, because the community has generally demonstrated that they can't have a civil discussion about it. That's the very reason why the disco balls ended up on the list. The T5 Connie is on the list because people won't take no for an answer, and those threads also often end in arguments.
Key points there.
1. A Dev made an official statement about 'x'.
2. People won't take 'x' for an answer.
3. People can't have a civil discussion about 'x'.
4. New people aren't aware of 1,2, or 3.
THAT is a pretty good reason to land a topic in the FCT.
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
It is not, "badboy7869 said the word 'Connie'; close the thread!"
If it's derailing a thread, we have other rules to cover that situation.
We're talking about the creation of threads specifically to discuss issues that the FCT says are closed.
Now, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about Fed Battle Cloak. Apart from any other consideration, threads created to discuss that usually wind up as flame wars.
It could end up on the FCT for that reason alone, because the community has generally demonstrated that they can't have a civil discussion about it. That's the very reason why the disco balls ended up on the list. The T5 Connie is on the list because people won't take no for an answer, and those threads also often end in arguments.
Key points there.
1. A Dev made an official statement about 'x'.
2. People won't take 'x' for an answer.
3. People can't have a civil discussion about 'x'.
4. New people aren't aware of 1,2, or 3.
THAT is a pretty good reason to land a topic in the FCT.
Is "let's get another Galaxy refit/reboot etc" going to go on that list?
In Regards to Tovan...(not touching the other subjects)
1. The 'Official Statement' doesn't address many/most of the suggestions.
2. There were plenty of people's suggestions that worked around 'x'
3. There were plenty of people capable of having a civil discussion about 'x'
4. see 1, 2, 3.
So there are some legitimate (IMO) concerns that this is turning into a "badboy7869 said the word 'Connie'; close the thread!"
The fact that bringing it up in regards to another topic apparently counts as derailing and warrants its own moderation doesn't help, IMO.
We're looking for official guidance as to whether to include Federation Battle Cloaking to the FCT.
We're pretty sure the Devs officially said no a long time ago, but we don't have official confirmation that it's a closed topic yet.
there are a few other issues that could do with an official response besides the battle cloak, cant you get someone senior enough up the chain to chat about it, see where it goes. the fct is as you say to put the final point on to prevent more of the samr threads popping up, since there is discussion about it, then you may as well try get as much info as you can as your position would allow without doing anything silly. its just an idea, but its what i would do just to make sure its final instead of digging through years of threads to find any potential answer.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The thing is, the FCT basically open censorship about an entire topic, which is what is worrying me. I don't know which place would be more appropiate to discuss the FCT than here, so I suppose discussing the FCT here is not exactly derailing.
Either way, let me demonstate what I mean.
For instance. People demands Fix A to Issue A all the time. The devs finally reply that Fix A to Issue A cannot be done. Issue A and the Fix A response ends on the FCT.
People then start asking for Fix B for Issue A, and now they get their thread closed, even if Fix B has nothing to do with Fix A and was never denied by the devs.
See the problem? If the FCT only closed threads talking about Fix A to Issue A I'd be 100% supportive of it.
And about the Fed Cloak/Battle-Cloak, there has been no Dev communication at all about it, so I'd say it shouldn't be on the FCT.
The thing is, the FCT basically open censorship about an entire topic, which is what is worrying me. I don't know which place would be more appropiate to discuss the FCT than here, so I suppose discussing the FCT here is not exactly derailing.
Either way, let me demonstate what I mean.
For instance. People demands Fix A to Issue A all the time. The devs finally reply that Fix A to Issue A cannot be done. Issue A and the Fix A response ends on the FCT.
People then start asking for Fix B for Issue A, and now they get their thread closed, even if Fix B has nothing to do with Fix A and was never denied by the devs.
See the problem? If the FCT only closed threads talking about Fix A to Issue A I'd be 100% supportive of it.
And about the Fed Cloak/Battle-Cloak, there has been no Dev communication at all about it, so I'd say it shouldn't be on the FCT.
The thing is, the FCT basically open censorship about an entire topic, which is what is worrying me. I don't know which place would be more appropiate to discuss the FCT than here, so I suppose discussing the FCT here is not exactly derailing.
Either way, let me demonstate what I mean.
For instance. People demands Fix A to Issue A all the time. The devs finally reply that Fix A to Issue A cannot be done. Issue A and the Fix A response ends on the FCT.
People then start asking for Fix B for Issue A, and now they get their thread closed, even if Fix B has nothing to do with Fix A and was never denied by the devs.
See the problem? If the FCT only closed threads talking about Fix A to Issue A I'd be 100% supportive of it.
And about the Fed Cloak/Battle-Cloak, there has been no Dev communication at all about it, so I'd say it shouldn't be on the FCT.
Exactly what I am trying to convey. Heck, in the Tovan threads, there were solutions specifically designed to accommodate the problems the devs brought up with dismissing Tovan before his missions were finished. But apparently because there was a dev post that took a few of the more extreme requests off the table, we aren't allowed to talk about it at all anymore.
And yeah, banning discussion on fed cloaking is silly IMO. There are a lot of factors in play that make it a rather valid topic of debate, the most obvious being that there is already 3 fed ships that can cloak-so there's a precedent.
If the Moderators want to help these threads towards productive conversation, then copy-pasting the relevant dev replies would be much more helpful IMO than a heavy handed policy of 'no discussion' about anything related to the topic.
unfortunately none of the good ideas to rollback on the censorship that we present to the w/e the title of these people are, will be considered. they are now one with cryptic, and cryptic does not roll back or listen to non praise feedback.
There really isn't any point in people getting het up about fed clocking being added to the FCT until we know for sure if it will be even be added to it.
It's not myfault ifyoufeel trolledbymyDisco ball...Sorry'boutit.
Here's the problem with the idea of "Well we suggested C and D even though A and B were the only things mentioned in the dev response, therefore we should keep talking about it."
No.
The point of the FCT is that the topic has run its course. We've exhausted the topic over and over again without any kind of resolution.
Cryptic should not have to repeat themselves after more or less stating 'It isn't going to happen.'
They don't have to explain why it isn't going to happen, only that it isn't. If they want to say, "We'll look into it." that's fine, that leaves open the door that maybe that feedback is useful and valuable.
Cryptic doesn't make a habit of giving absolutions on various topics unless they are firmly convinced it isn't possible, feasible, financially viable, or allowable.
So it doesn't matter if the 'useful' feedback consists of, "Well, what if you threw a salt shaker over your shoulder while singing the National Anthem with your feet soaking in cold baked beans?"
They've already given their answer on the topic. They've already made up their mind that any kind of feedback on the topic isn't going to go anywhere. They know these are issues people care about. They know people have given an exhaustive amount of feedback already -- and each time the answer has been 'No'.
It's immature to keep bringing it up thinking we've found the holy grail of solutions, when established history has shown that there is no holy grail of solutions for that particular issue.
Comments
*takes the bacon*
Peace out yo :P
*goes back to his desk and eats*
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
But the devs never denied applying another solution to Tovan, they only denied making him dismissable.
The FCT should only cover what has actually been outright refused by devs. Removing Tovan from the bridge was not covered at all.
When we have issues with the game it is important to speak up and let the devs know them. Silencing anything regarding Tovan is wrong, especially perfectly valid alternative solutions to dismissing.
Furthermore, I haven't seen any thread suggesting to remove him from the bridge as an alternative. Most just suggest adding superior operative or an extra character slot, which hardly fixes or addresses my issue.
This FCT needs clear moderation to avoid abuse and censorship.
You can take our threads...our FREEDOM!!! (of speech, or something)...but you can never take our...
SOVEREIGN BA'AL!!! (see link in my sig)
HAIL BA'AL!!!1!!!!!11!1!!!!one!!!
In answer to your first two questions...
As for the last, I am telling you that discussion of moderation activity is not allowed and further discussion will result in further moderation activity.
If you have an issue with a moderation decision, you submit a support ticket. That is the process.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I'll agree to drop the subject on this thread and won't make any threads about it as long as it's on the FCT list, but my passion for this issue grows with every resistance I encounter.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
gurluas, you may just want to drop it for your own sake on these forums. im sure no one cares if there is one less here, but over something this silly? its not worth the infractions and a ban over.
he can and you must accept the direction that is offered.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
obviously looking at files on your own computer = hacking the game.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
You are drawing out the debate right now, right here. Stop. You want to talk about it on Facebook, be my guest. Next warning will be in your inbox.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Sorry.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Would be cool if you had the same fire for things like, world peace, ending hunger, curing cancer, getting nutrient rich food into inner city communities, Detroit... etc, but toven?
anyway, try not to get banned, man, there's more important things to complain about, like engineering powers.
Actually it kind of isn't TBH. In all the years I've been watching these forums, they've only added one more ship that can cloak, the Avenger (two ships if you consider the Fleet Avenger to be a separate ship). They have never added battle cloak to any Fed ship. Yet there have been HOW many threads begging, pleading, asking, for exactly that?
(I'm not counting lockbox ships that can cloak)
I'm not saying this as some 'KDF fanboy' or 'whiner' that tends to get thrown around a lot in those types of threads, I'm just tired of seeing people constantly try and justify cloaking, and the threads usually devolve into nothing anyways.
Nothing has ever come about from those threads, yet people keep on making them over and over. Whatever reasons or justifications don't really matter. Nothing has happened, and as far as we know at this moment, nothing will be happening in the future about Feds gaining more cloaks.
We're pretty sure the Devs officially said no a long time ago, but we don't have official confirmation that it's a closed topic yet.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
So it certainly seems like Topics the Dev's don't like being criticized on are being swept under the rug under the guise of being called "Dead Horses" rather than any sort of legitimate claim to all avenues of discussion being exhausted. This is NOT a development which I am in any way supportive of.
It is not, "badboy7869 said the word 'Connie'; close the thread!"
If it's derailing a thread, we have other rules to cover that situation.
We're talking about the creation of threads specifically to discuss issues that the FCT says are closed.
Now, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about Fed Battle Cloak. Apart from any other consideration, threads created to discuss that usually wind up as flame wars.
It could end up on the FCT for that reason alone, because the community has generally demonstrated that they can't have a civil discussion about it. That's the very reason why the disco balls ended up on the list. The T5 Connie is on the list because people won't take no for an answer, and those threads also often end in arguments.
Key points there.
1. A Dev made an official statement about 'x'.
2. People won't take 'x' for an answer.
3. People can't have a civil discussion about 'x'.
4. New people aren't aware of 1,2, or 3.
THAT is a pretty good reason to land a topic in the FCT.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Is "let's get another Galaxy refit/reboot etc" going to go on that list?
1. The 'Official Statement' doesn't address many/most of the suggestions.
2. There were plenty of people's suggestions that worked around 'x'
3. There were plenty of people capable of having a civil discussion about 'x'
4. see 1, 2, 3.
So there are some legitimate (IMO) concerns that this is turning into a "badboy7869 said the word 'Connie'; close the thread!"
The fact that bringing it up in regards to another topic apparently counts as derailing and warrants its own moderation doesn't help, IMO.
And nothing of value was lost.
there are a few other issues that could do with an official response besides the battle cloak, cant you get someone senior enough up the chain to chat about it, see where it goes. the fct is as you say to put the final point on to prevent more of the samr threads popping up, since there is discussion about it, then you may as well try get as much info as you can as your position would allow without doing anything silly. its just an idea, but its what i would do just to make sure its final instead of digging through years of threads to find any potential answer.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Either way, let me demonstate what I mean.
For instance. People demands Fix A to Issue A all the time. The devs finally reply that Fix A to Issue A cannot be done. Issue A and the Fix A response ends on the FCT.
People then start asking for Fix B for Issue A, and now they get their thread closed, even if Fix B has nothing to do with Fix A and was never denied by the devs.
See the problem? If the FCT only closed threads talking about Fix A to Issue A I'd be 100% supportive of it.
And about the Fed Cloak/Battle-Cloak, there has been no Dev communication at all about it, so I'd say it shouldn't be on the FCT.
Along with unicorns, faeries, elves, and other mythical things.
good post.
Exactly what I am trying to convey. Heck, in the Tovan threads, there were solutions specifically designed to accommodate the problems the devs brought up with dismissing Tovan before his missions were finished. But apparently because there was a dev post that took a few of the more extreme requests off the table, we aren't allowed to talk about it at all anymore.
And yeah, banning discussion on fed cloaking is silly IMO. There are a lot of factors in play that make it a rather valid topic of debate, the most obvious being that there is already 3 fed ships that can cloak-so there's a precedent.
If the Moderators want to help these threads towards productive conversation, then copy-pasting the relevant dev replies would be much more helpful IMO than a heavy handed policy of 'no discussion' about anything related to the topic.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
R.I.P. Leonard Nimoy
No.
The point of the FCT is that the topic has run its course. We've exhausted the topic over and over again without any kind of resolution.
Cryptic should not have to repeat themselves after more or less stating 'It isn't going to happen.'
They don't have to explain why it isn't going to happen, only that it isn't. If they want to say, "We'll look into it." that's fine, that leaves open the door that maybe that feedback is useful and valuable.
Cryptic doesn't make a habit of giving absolutions on various topics unless they are firmly convinced it isn't possible, feasible, financially viable, or allowable.
So it doesn't matter if the 'useful' feedback consists of, "Well, what if you threw a salt shaker over your shoulder while singing the National Anthem with your feet soaking in cold baked beans?"
They've already given their answer on the topic. They've already made up their mind that any kind of feedback on the topic isn't going to go anywhere. They know these are issues people care about. They know people have given an exhaustive amount of feedback already -- and each time the answer has been 'No'.
It's immature to keep bringing it up thinking we've found the holy grail of solutions, when established history has shown that there is no holy grail of solutions for that particular issue.