I think darkhorse nailed it. When we report a problem -- a bug, a gold spammer, a player behaving poorly -- the only response we frequently get is automated, and nothing perceptible changes. This creates the impression that nothing is happening regarding our reports, and that they usually end up in File 13. I believe that what the OP is requesting is a formalization of the 'Name and Shame' rules so that players don't go off half-cocked and fewer threads become flaming troll wrecks. Another help would be a report, generated weekly let's say, that lists administrative actions taken -- x number of players banned for gold farming, x number chastized for repeated AFK/leeching, etc., no names needed. We already get some of this in the patch notes, and would like more. We are hoping for a bit more transparency, and not the feeling that when we report an issue, we may as well be yelling at a Tribble.
"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?
I think darkhorse nailed it. When we report a problem -- a bug, a gold spammer, a player behaving poorly -- the only response we frequently get is automated. This creates the impression that nothing is happening regarding our reports, and that they usually end up in File 13. I believe that what the OP is requesting is a formalization of the 'Name and Shame' rules so that players don't go off half-cocked and fewer threads become flaming troll wrecks. Another help would be a report, generated weekly let's say, that lists administrative actions taken -- x number of players banned for gold farming, x number chastized for repeated AFK/leeching, etc., no names needed. We already get some of this in the patch notes, and would like more. We are hoping for a bit more transparency, and not the feeling that when we report an issue, we may as well be yelling at a Tribble.
Your report idead is really good. Blizzard and Valve do this.
Now we have two key words: FEEDBACK and TRANSPARENCY.
-- "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Jean-Luc Picard
Highly agreed, if proof can be shown it should be allowed to be shown. Sending it to their staff does little to no good!!!
No it shouldn't. 'Proof' as you put it, is very, very easy to fake. Don't tell me it can't be because I know whole guilds of people in other games that have made it their mission in life to do just that
On a interesting note the Neverwinter Forums had a "no-holds barred" section called "The under ground" or some thing like that, where there really were no rules.
I always wondered if the neverwinter forums could do that why we could not have a similar forum section called "The Lower Decks"
Because such things lead to harassment, which leads to bannings at best and potential legal trouble at worst
I can agree with that. Hard to do so with a full suite of text against an in-game background, unless that ends up (and goodness, we all know it will) in 'I can tell it's a photoshop from the pixels and from seeing some in my time.'
No it shouldn't. 'Proof' as you put it, is very, very easy to fake. Don't tell me it can't be because I know whole guilds of people in other games that have made it their mission in life to do just that
Because such things lead to harassment, which leads to bannings at best and potential legal trouble at worst
Actually its not difficult at all
Agreed, agreed and agreed.
The whole 'proof' thing is a red herring.
All I am completely sure about is the need for some form of transparency, some sense that things can change.
While I wholly agree with maintaining the privacy of individual players, I just don't see how a report with no names cuts across that.
cgta1967, he answered that will be no change, ever, about this, like other issues adressed by the comunity.
So yes, there is no Feedback, just making clear that they don't care about what "we" players think.
Therefore, to me you're just trying to create conflict and turn this thread to a War
I agree as well. Some people here are trying to "flame" the mods. Don't speak for me and I for once I'm ok with the rules "as is". I have been in the other end trying to deal with the ill wills of human behavior. When I filed tickets even though I got an automated response...days later I knew the behavior was addressed...how I knew?...well the "misbehavior" from the attacker all of a sudden stopped.
Instead of venting out your frustrations in this thread do it in a ticket and demand something to be done. If nothing being done then go ahead and try again until you see the pattern break...looks like the OP decided to write this post first and vent out...then later on stated that he would file those tickets. Wrong approach...file those tickets first then vent out to the proper channels.
There are so many bugs that PWE needs to address with the game play and those need to be addressed for the sake of good play. IMO the forums and the code at least is something that works well for Cryptic unlike the rest of the game bugs.
You really didn't get the point or just ignored it, not a surprise to me either.
We are tired of a under minimal support from your staff. Player issues, bug reports, in-game balance problems. You don't listen to the comunity, even those threads with really good ideas.
^^ This.
Frankly, I'm a little disappointed myself. Apparently our Community Manager fell right into the trap of a certain someone pretending this was about people demanding to get notified about actions taken against users, whereas NOBODY in this thread ever even suggested such a thing.
Instead, the few ppl who took this topic seriously astutely noted that part of the root-cause is Cryptic's lack of communication in general. Whatever is being brought to bare, whether it be bug reports, or reporting spammers, you never get a peep out of Cryptic.
CCP, for example -- the peeps behind EVE Online -- tend to compile detailed reports, ever-so often, about things like how mining bots operate, how many botters were found, what they did to identify and prevent such activities in the future. Usually makes for a very interesting read. And no 'naming & shaming' involved: just a company letting folks know they're on the ball with things that matter to people. What such reports accomplish, foremost, is cause a sense of relief amongs ppl: knowing something is being done.
I see no reason why Cryptic couldn't be doing the same. Doesn't even have to be elaborate; often a simple "We're aware of the issue, and are looking into it." suffices.
IMO the forums and the code at least is something that works well for Cryptic unlike the rest of the game bugs.
To be fair I think two issues are getting conflated here.
On the one hand there's moderation of these fora. Frankly I don't see any major problems.
The mods have always struck me a fair minded, not waving the Very rare Mk XII banhammer in an irresponsible way at all.
However, where I think there may be an issue for some is ingame itself.
The privacy issue is important, but there have been so many instances where complainants report no change or response to tickets that a perception of ostritch position has arisen.
The perception itself is, to my mind, the actual problem.
And perceptions are best dealt with by communication, transparency etc.....
I had made a Trollish Thread a few days ago... I was angry about Tacs, getting on my back for using a FBP build.
Later that day I had calmed down and apologized in my thread, I was out of line... And was indeed being pretty immature.. (I generalized all tacs as crybabies...)
This was wrong on my part... Later that night I ran across several friendly tacs in Ker'rat.
So I'd like to take my comments back reguarding the Tac Captains...
But the good news is, this thread turned into a great discussion on tactics and skill for the Sci captain...and counters for other Captain professions...
Wonder how Cryptic would feel if they examined my thread more closely... ?
It'd be a shame if they deleted it, as it does contain some excellent information.
As for the naming and shaming...
Is warning people not to join a specific fleet with unruly/immoral practices considered naming and shaming ?
I'd say yes it is...but do the benefits out weigh the violation ? I'd consider such a post a public service, but perhaps Cryptic has a zero tolerance policy on such matters...
I agree as well. Some people here are trying to "flame" the mods. Don't speak for me and I for once I'm ok with the rules "as is". I have been in the other end trying to deal with the ill wills of human behavior. When I filed tickets even though I got an automated response...days later I knew the behavior was addressed...how I knew?...well the "misbehavior" from the attacker all of a sudden stopped.
Instead of venting out your frustrations in this thread do it in a ticket and demand something to be done. If nothing being done then go ahead and try again until you see the pattern break...looks like the OP decided to write this post first and vent out...then later on stated that he would file those tickets. Wrong approach...file those tickets first then vent out to the proper channels.
There are so many bugs that PWE needs to address with the game play and those need to be addressed for the sake of good play. IMO the forums and the code at least is something that works well for Cryptic unlike the rest of the game bugs.
If you read my posts here, you would know that I cited two situations when the Staff didn't answered as espected for a support team.
We have the bugs and all the feedback absence.
I do agree about some suggestions to solve the issues addressed by the OP, but I doubt they will ever even consider it.
Well, I don't blame the DEV team, those who make decisions are responsible.
-- "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Jean-Luc Picard
As for the naming and shaming...
Is warning people not to join a specific fleet with unruly/immoral practices considered naming and shaming ?
I'd say yes it is...but do the benefits out weigh the violation ? I'd consider such a post a public service, but perhaps Cryptic has a zero tolerance policy on such matters...
Absolutely not worth the candle one little bit.
I may have debated with CGTA strongly but on this point I feel we agree 100%.
No names. Period.
We don't want vigilantes.
What I'm arguing for is a little more general transparency over the entire process.
Which has to come from Cryptic.
The ball, in this case, is in their court. Indeed, its their ball.
If you want to tell a friend one on one to stay away from a particular fleet or player, that's your business. Freaking out about it on the forums or in zone chat looks more like the disheveled kook with the 'End Times' sign on the corner. I would like simply to have more confirmation that actions are being taken, without naming names.
"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?
As for the naming and shaming...
Is warning people not to join a specific fleet with unruly/immoral practices considered naming and shaming ?
I'd say yes it is...but do the benefits out weigh the violation ? I'd consider such a post a public service, but perhaps Cryptic has a zero tolerance policy on such matters...
A post warning someone about any fleet has no benefits. There is no way to distinguish whether the claim is truthful or not. Even when the poster believes a claim to be true, in fact even when that claim is true, it doesn't make the post any less meaningless. A third party cannot distinguish between a truthful claim and a blatant lie.
And that means that if the rule allows you to post something you want about them, with only your word that it's the truth; To be fair it necessarily must allow the other side to post whatever it wishes about you, with only their word that it's the truth.
The benefit of rules against 'naming and shaming' is not that they protect 'immoral fleets' but rather that they prevent messages board from being flooded with mudslinging back and forth.
I'm all for naming and shaming guilty parties who are nothing but trouble on a regular basis, HOWEVER, the trouble in doing this can very easily lead to abuse because of someone having a beef with someone for a one time issue and thinking "Right, I'll get you" and blasting their name all over the place.
It unfortunately means something that has good intent ultimatly ends up as a tool of destruction
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] ***Disenchanted***
Real Join Date: Monday, 17 May 2010
All naming and shaming is used for is to sneakily attack people behind their back and give them no opportunity to provide a rebuttal. In fact providing a rebuttal to the claims is considered flaming on these forums. So this shuts down any ability to respond to naming and shaming. There are plenty of gullible people who believe anything they read and they join a witch hunt based on lies and rumours.
If anyone is naming and shaming you need to look closely at them and consider their agenda or if they are just trying to bully someone. The way I look at them is I start from the position of wondering what is wrong with the person doing the naming and shaming. The next is that I have to wonder why they take a game so seriously they believe they need to personally attack someone.
In the end it's bad behaviour which can poison and destroy a forum. This provides no benefit to the playerbase in a game.
However, where I think there may be an issue for some is ingame itself.
The privacy issue is important, but there have been so many instances where complainants report no change or response to tickets that a perception of ostritch position has arisen.
The perception itself is, to my mind, the actual problem.
And perceptions are best dealt with by communication, transparency etc.....[/QUOTE]
Exactly I couldn't agree more. I once had a boss who would a always say perception is reality and right now the general perception of cryptic support is that it's non existent. The only way they can fix that is with communication and some level of transparency. Unfortunately as Branflakes already stated in so many words cryptic has no interest in fixing that perception. So they just flip us the bird with hand while the other is reaching for our wallets. I have seen poor support cost companies millions in lost business and the lack of support is one of the many reasons I have closed my wallet to cryptic and I know I'm not alone in that.
I hate that Dental threads get locked and deleted. Seriously the best threads in this forum and it always makes me sad to refresh to find that it has been locked or removed.
[Edit]This has nothing to do with naming or shaming, I just like being entertained.
All naming and shaming is used for is to sneakily attack people behind their back and give them no opportunity to provide a rebuttal. In fact providing a rebuttal to the claims is considered flaming on these forums. So this shuts down any ability to respond to naming and shaming. There are plenty of gullible people who believe anything they read and they join a witch hunt based on lies and rumours.
Yeah, unsubstantiated bleating is what really kills discourse. But even substantiating it is against the rules.
Not so much actions being taken on users, but a bit of feedback along the lines of 'yes, rules were broken,' or 'no, no rules were broken' would [...] help a lot [in ticket resolution/providing feedback to the community]. But that's just another opinion on the ol' heap.
I hate that Dental threads get locked and deleted. Seriously the best threads in this forum and it always makes me sad to refresh to find that it has been locked or removed.
Yeah, without toeing too much on the subject, it's a shame they attract aforementioned unsubstantiated bleating a lot.
Then again, that, too, is amusing!
____GREAT LEADERS LET THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
All naming and shaming is used for is to sneakily attack people behind their back and give them no opportunity to provide a rebuttal. In fact providing a rebuttal to the claims is considered flaming on these forums. So this shuts down any ability to respond to naming and shaming. There are plenty of gullible people who believe anything they read and they join a witch hunt based on lies and rumours.
I'm sure you'll be as shocked as I to discover I agree with your post 100%.
Well said.
on another note, I'm slightly saddened that this thread was started with a phrase that includes the words 'name and shame', although I understand the reasoning.
In my view, the takeaway from these posts should be two fold.
firstly, naming and shaming IS wrong. end of.
The policy is in place for a reason and the vast majority of us both affirm and understand that reason.
Secondly, and slightly conversely, there needs to be somewhat more transparency to STO's system of dealing with the incredibly tiny percentage of bad actors.
As Devian suggests, most people are gullible, at least some of the time (as Abraham Lincoln also suggests......good company you're keeping Devian )
Witch hunts happen.
witch hunts can be prevented from happening by more accurate information.
Eve Online, in my view, has little to teach STO, but their occasional security style report may be one area where STO could take a hint.
I hate that Dental threads get locked and deleted. Seriously the best threads in this forum and it always makes me sad to refresh to find that it has been locked or removed.
[Edit]This has nothing to do with naming or shaming, I just like being entertained.
We can't even post any giveaways or promotional events to give something back to the players without prior approval of the post. It's not because of what we post it's the work created for the mods by people going crazy in our giveaway threads. If people didn't jump into our threads and try to carry out an agenda to name and shame us we could provide more help to the community.
While it looks like victim blaming I do feel sorry for the mods having to deal with all the horrible posting. If the community behaved better there would be more benefits for the community. So perhaps a way of dealing with this is to explicitly state the rules about naming and shaming coupled with an increase in the severity of the punishment for doing it.
There are pragmatic issues with creating a format where players can engage in "Naming & Shaming" and Cryptic/PWE codifying "Community Guidelines, and putting it to paper".
Some points:
a) legal and ethical behaviour are two different things. Refer to the past banking crisis as a real world example.
b) countries (province, states, districts) vary in legal statute and the cost of compliance would increase to ensure whatever framework is created, and the comments, do not violate bullying to stalking to libel laws.
c) there are some people who sometimes forget words have definitions requiring an Inigo Montoya correction.
If a person is so intent upon "Naming & Shaming" then nothing stops that person(s) from making the investment to create a web-site or page; utilise SEO and marketing strategies to improve search results; drive traffic; and take full ownership and accountability (legal and financial) instead of asking Cryptic/PWE to assume liability for a person's "Naming & Shaming" post.
I find the mental gymnastics some people go thru to justify why they can't/shouldn't follow a simple rule on the forums including blaming <insert any company name> amusing.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights make an airplane.
Hi there acrosscat. I think it's better to not have naming and shaming anywhere in the game or forums. My reason, it would be abused by the same nefarious individuals that, spur the desire for name and shame, to grief innocent players.
I also think its very easy to avoid 'bad karma' players. If someone's actions have you raising red flags, don't associate with that player. If a fleet feels dirty, leave and don't look back. I don't know for certain but my gut tells me there are plenty of people playing STO that are out to hurt no one. Find them, get to know them, and boldly go...:D
While it looks like victim blaming I do feel sorry for the mods having to deal with all the horrible posting. If the community behaved better there would be more benefits for the community. So perhaps a way of dealing with this is to explicitly state the rules about naming and shaming coupled with an increase in the severity of the punishment for doing it.
And I think a great deal of the efforts at naming and shaming would stop if Cryptic had public bannings of fleets engaged in anti-social or organized exploiting. By which I mean: banning it and announcing that they're doing it.
Blizzard does this in severe cases, generally with raid exploiting. (And a lot goes unpoliced in their games but they make an effort with raid exploits through temporary and sometimes permanent bans.)
I think STO is a more casual, social game. And disruptive, organized in-game social behavior should lead to temporary and ultimately permanent bannings up to and including entire fleets. And that it's the job of a good publisher to do this kind of police work and take the risks and responsibility associated with publicly announcing it.
I don't think a libertarian ethos has any place in managing a game. Frankly, I miss Jack Emmert's rage and hands on managerial style a lot when I play STO. Which I haven't done since the summer event ended.
And that's in large part because I've lost faith.
And I've lost faith because the game seems to be increasingly driven by social features rather than intricately crafted content design and I don't see any serious efforts to police disruptive or exploitative behavior.
If I thought we'd come back around to the old goal of 30-50 FE series a year? I wouldn't care about socially disruptive behavior; I'd be in my instances. But if the game is going to be driven towards socialization, I want a central authority that polices social infractions. Not automated spam detection. Not discipline that is limited to economic exploits. But to see a firm, direct hand shaping the community and culling organized disruption.
Otherwise, not that eager to participate in social features.
I think it's better to not have naming and shaming anywhere in the game or forums. My reason, it would be abused by the same nefarious individuals that, spur the desire for name and shame, to grief innocent players.
I also think its very easy to avoid 'bad karma' players. If someone's actions have you raising red flags, don't associate with that player. If a fleet feels dirty, leave and don't look back. I don't know for certain but my gut tells me there are plenty of people playing STO that are out to hurt no one. Find them, get to know them, and boldly go...:D
Yeah, that does seem to be the wiseman's course of action in particular. Doesn't stop me from being a cross cat (haha) about particular events in the past weeks.
We can't even post any giveaways or promotional events to give something back to the players without prior approval of the post. It's not because of what we post it's the work created for the mods by people going crazy in our giveaway threads. If people didn't jump into our threads and try to carry out an agenda to name and shame us we could provide more help to the community.
I remember - Star Trek Online's first and finest does take the brunt from the hatred being spewed to you fine people on these forums. In that regard in particular, 'naming and shaming' does its job in at least in quelling the flames. Somewhat.
If it ever gets moderated. Oh right, no feedback on when one post is breaking the rules, but another one isn't. Again, I very much would like to see just the tiniest bit of feedback on ticket handling. After all, we are still beholden to the rules with regards to being disallowed to share moderation decisions. But at the least you'd know when something warrants a ticket again in the future, or when not.
re: giveaways. I was pretty cross a cat (haha, again) when I found that out in your threads. Reminds me to go back and submit those tickets. Again.
While it looks like victim blaming I do feel sorry for the mods having to deal with all the horrible posting. If the community behaved better there would be more benefits for the community. So perhaps a way of dealing with this is to explicitly state the rules about naming and shaming coupled with an increase in the severity of the punishment for doing it.
Pretty much one of my intentions with regards to this thread. Clarification.
More to the point: I do have to commend the mods in this forum for being very "on the ball" when it comes to naming, shaming, and perceived vigilantism. I'd also like to add that many members of the community, once realizing that they may have unwittingly broken the name and shaming rule, are quick to go in an edit their post to remove identifying information. That's also commendable.
I've seen it happen at least three times in the General Discussion subforum alone this week. Someone was upset about a guy going AFK for five minutes in an STF, called him out, then redacted the name when other users mentioned naming and shaming. So, I do agree that there should be more explicit mention/clarification on the side of Cryptic, as those who do not make connections between flaming/harassment rules and naming/shaming can often post a rant without fully understanding the implications for doing so. I'd like to think most people are reasonable enough to go in and edit out anything that may well disrupt the forums if they are politely told the rules.
There's always that small minority, however, that intentionally aims to tarnish someone's reputation regardless of forum rules.
Pretty much. I'd like to appologize of having been part of the problem in-game once, since you're posting here, anyway.
But again, absolutely. Clarification.
____GREAT LEADERS LET THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We know when we make our posts whether or not our motives are to violate the forum rules regardless of how we try to disguise them, and keeping the definition loose and open to interpretation allows Cryptic/PWE the freedom to base their decisions on the motives behind our posts and not allow us to point at a specific rules and claim that "technically" naming and shaming didn't occur.
When I point out in reports what rules they do tend to break, however, and still see no action being taken, but see other posts later on being moderated that broke the same rules, I would very much still like feedback and clarification.
But that is neither here or there, with regards to 'naming and shaming.'
____GREAT LEADERS LET THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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]
Comments
Romulans: left one homeworld, lost another, third time's the charm?
Your report idead is really good. Blizzard and Valve do this.
Now we have two key words: FEEDBACK and TRANSPARENCY.
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Jean-Luc Picard
No it shouldn't. 'Proof' as you put it, is very, very easy to fake. Don't tell me it can't be because I know whole guilds of people in other games that have made it their mission in life to do just that
Because such things lead to harassment, which leads to bannings at best and potential legal trouble at worst
Actually its not difficult at all
Agreed, agreed and agreed.
The whole 'proof' thing is a red herring.
All I am completely sure about is the need for some form of transparency, some sense that things can change.
While I wholly agree with maintaining the privacy of individual players, I just don't see how a report with no names cuts across that.
I agree as well. Some people here are trying to "flame" the mods. Don't speak for me and I for once I'm ok with the rules "as is". I have been in the other end trying to deal with the ill wills of human behavior. When I filed tickets even though I got an automated response...days later I knew the behavior was addressed...how I knew?...well the "misbehavior" from the attacker all of a sudden stopped.
Instead of venting out your frustrations in this thread do it in a ticket and demand something to be done. If nothing being done then go ahead and try again until you see the pattern break...looks like the OP decided to write this post first and vent out...then later on stated that he would file those tickets. Wrong approach...file those tickets first then vent out to the proper channels.
There are so many bugs that PWE needs to address with the game play and those need to be addressed for the sake of good play. IMO the forums and the code at least is something that works well for Cryptic unlike the rest of the game bugs.
^^ This.
Frankly, I'm a little disappointed myself. Apparently our Community Manager fell right into the trap of a certain someone pretending this was about people demanding to get notified about actions taken against users, whereas NOBODY in this thread ever even suggested such a thing.
Instead, the few ppl who took this topic seriously astutely noted that part of the root-cause is Cryptic's lack of communication in general. Whatever is being brought to bare, whether it be bug reports, or reporting spammers, you never get a peep out of Cryptic.
CCP, for example -- the peeps behind EVE Online -- tend to compile detailed reports, ever-so often, about things like how mining bots operate, how many botters were found, what they did to identify and prevent such activities in the future. Usually makes for a very interesting read. And no 'naming & shaming' involved: just a company letting folks know they're on the ball with things that matter to people. What such reports accomplish, foremost, is cause a sense of relief amongs ppl: knowing something is being done.
I see no reason why Cryptic couldn't be doing the same. Doesn't even have to be elaborate; often a simple "We're aware of the issue, and are looking into it." suffices.
To be fair I think two issues are getting conflated here.
On the one hand there's moderation of these fora. Frankly I don't see any major problems.
The mods have always struck me a fair minded, not waving the Very rare Mk XII banhammer in an irresponsible way at all.
However, where I think there may be an issue for some is ingame itself.
The privacy issue is important, but there have been so many instances where complainants report no change or response to tickets that a perception of ostritch position has arisen.
The perception itself is, to my mind, the actual problem.
And perceptions are best dealt with by communication, transparency etc.....
Later that day I had calmed down and apologized in my thread, I was out of line... And was indeed being pretty immature.. (I generalized all tacs as crybabies...)
This was wrong on my part... Later that night I ran across several friendly tacs in Ker'rat.
So I'd like to take my comments back reguarding the Tac Captains...
But the good news is, this thread turned into a great discussion on tactics and skill for the Sci captain...and counters for other Captain professions...
Wonder how Cryptic would feel if they examined my thread more closely... ?
It'd be a shame if they deleted it, as it does contain some excellent information.
As for the naming and shaming...
Is warning people not to join a specific fleet with unruly/immoral practices considered naming and shaming ?
I'd say yes it is...but do the benefits out weigh the violation ? I'd consider such a post a public service, but perhaps Cryptic has a zero tolerance policy on such matters...
If you read my posts here, you would know that I cited two situations when the Staff didn't answered as espected for a support team.
We have the bugs and all the feedback absence.
I do agree about some suggestions to solve the issues addressed by the OP, but I doubt they will ever even consider it.
Well, I don't blame the DEV team, those who make decisions are responsible.
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Jean-Luc Picard
Absolutely not worth the candle one little bit.
I may have debated with CGTA strongly but on this point I feel we agree 100%.
No names. Period.
We don't want vigilantes.
What I'm arguing for is a little more general transparency over the entire process.
Which has to come from Cryptic.
The ball, in this case, is in their court. Indeed, its their ball.
Romulans: left one homeworld, lost another, third time's the charm?
A post warning someone about any fleet has no benefits. There is no way to distinguish whether the claim is truthful or not. Even when the poster believes a claim to be true, in fact even when that claim is true, it doesn't make the post any less meaningless. A third party cannot distinguish between a truthful claim and a blatant lie.
And that means that if the rule allows you to post something you want about them, with only your word that it's the truth; To be fair it necessarily must allow the other side to post whatever it wishes about you, with only their word that it's the truth.
The benefit of rules against 'naming and shaming' is not that they protect 'immoral fleets' but rather that they prevent messages board from being flooded with mudslinging back and forth.
It unfortunately means something that has good intent ultimatly ends up as a tool of destruction
***Disenchanted***
Real Join Date: Monday, 17 May 2010
If anyone is naming and shaming you need to look closely at them and consider their agenda or if they are just trying to bully someone. The way I look at them is I start from the position of wondering what is wrong with the person doing the naming and shaming. The next is that I have to wonder why they take a game so seriously they believe they need to personally attack someone.
In the end it's bad behaviour which can poison and destroy a forum. This provides no benefit to the playerbase in a game.
However, where I think there may be an issue for some is ingame itself.
The privacy issue is important, but there have been so many instances where complainants report no change or response to tickets that a perception of ostritch position has arisen.
The perception itself is, to my mind, the actual problem.
And perceptions are best dealt with by communication, transparency etc.....[/QUOTE]
Exactly I couldn't agree more. I once had a boss who would a always say perception is reality and right now the general perception of cryptic support is that it's non existent. The only way they can fix that is with communication and some level of transparency. Unfortunately as Branflakes already stated in so many words cryptic has no interest in fixing that perception. So they just flip us the bird with hand while the other is reaching for our wallets. I have seen poor support cost companies millions in lost business and the lack of support is one of the many reasons I have closed my wallet to cryptic and I know I'm not alone in that.
[Edit]This has nothing to do with naming or shaming, I just like being entertained.
Yeah, unsubstantiated bleating is what really kills discourse. But even substantiating it is against the rules.
I guess that's the core and crux of any community, really.
Anyway, I'll look forward to Branflakes/PWE's response on my earlier post as I head off, because timezones and sleep. Maybe even rule clarifications in the guidelines thread.
EDIT:
Yeah, without toeing too much on the subject, it's a shame they attract aforementioned unsubstantiated bleating a lot.
Then again, that, too, is amusing!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I'm sure you'll be as shocked as I to discover I agree with your post 100%.
Well said.
on another note, I'm slightly saddened that this thread was started with a phrase that includes the words 'name and shame', although I understand the reasoning.
In my view, the takeaway from these posts should be two fold.
firstly, naming and shaming IS wrong. end of.
The policy is in place for a reason and the vast majority of us both affirm and understand that reason.
Secondly, and slightly conversely, there needs to be somewhat more transparency to STO's system of dealing with the incredibly tiny percentage of bad actors.
As Devian suggests, most people are gullible, at least some of the time (as Abraham Lincoln also suggests......good company you're keeping Devian
Witch hunts happen.
witch hunts can be prevented from happening by more accurate information.
Eve Online, in my view, has little to teach STO, but their occasional security style report may be one area where STO could take a hint.
We can't even post any giveaways or promotional events to give something back to the players without prior approval of the post. It's not because of what we post it's the work created for the mods by people going crazy in our giveaway threads. If people didn't jump into our threads and try to carry out an agenda to name and shame us we could provide more help to the community.
While it looks like victim blaming I do feel sorry for the mods having to deal with all the horrible posting. If the community behaved better there would be more benefits for the community. So perhaps a way of dealing with this is to explicitly state the rules about naming and shaming coupled with an increase in the severity of the punishment for doing it.
Some points:
a) legal and ethical behaviour are two different things. Refer to the past banking crisis as a real world example.
b) countries (province, states, districts) vary in legal statute and the cost of compliance would increase to ensure whatever framework is created, and the comments, do not violate bullying to stalking to libel laws.
c) there are some people who sometimes forget words have definitions requiring an Inigo Montoya correction.
If a person is so intent upon "Naming & Shaming" then nothing stops that person(s) from making the investment to create a web-site or page; utilise SEO and marketing strategies to improve search results; drive traffic; and take full ownership and accountability (legal and financial) instead of asking Cryptic/PWE to assume liability for a person's "Naming & Shaming" post.
I thought two rights made a U-turn?
R.I.P
I also think its very easy to avoid 'bad karma' players. If someone's actions have you raising red flags, don't associate with that player. If a fleet feels dirty, leave and don't look back. I don't know for certain but my gut tells me there are plenty of people playing STO that are out to hurt no one. Find them, get to know them, and boldly go...:D
Is there anything in the EULA about blackmail?
Blizzard does this in severe cases, generally with raid exploiting. (And a lot goes unpoliced in their games but they make an effort with raid exploits through temporary and sometimes permanent bans.)
I think STO is a more casual, social game. And disruptive, organized in-game social behavior should lead to temporary and ultimately permanent bannings up to and including entire fleets. And that it's the job of a good publisher to do this kind of police work and take the risks and responsibility associated with publicly announcing it.
I don't think a libertarian ethos has any place in managing a game. Frankly, I miss Jack Emmert's rage and hands on managerial style a lot when I play STO. Which I haven't done since the summer event ended.
And that's in large part because I've lost faith.
And I've lost faith because the game seems to be increasingly driven by social features rather than intricately crafted content design and I don't see any serious efforts to police disruptive or exploitative behavior.
If I thought we'd come back around to the old goal of 30-50 FE series a year? I wouldn't care about socially disruptive behavior; I'd be in my instances. But if the game is going to be driven towards socialization, I want a central authority that polices social infractions. Not automated spam detection. Not discipline that is limited to economic exploits. But to see a firm, direct hand shaping the community and culling organized disruption.
Otherwise, not that eager to participate in social features.
Yeah, that does seem to be the wiseman's course of action in particular. Doesn't stop me from being a cross cat (haha) about particular events in the past weeks.
Or even prior!
I remember - Star Trek Online's first and finest does take the brunt from the hatred being spewed to you fine people on these forums. In that regard in particular, 'naming and shaming' does its job in at least in quelling the flames. Somewhat.
If it ever gets moderated. Oh right, no feedback on when one post is breaking the rules, but another one isn't. Again, I very much would like to see just the tiniest bit of feedback on ticket handling. After all, we are still beholden to the rules with regards to being disallowed to share moderation decisions. But at the least you'd know when something warrants a ticket again in the future, or when not.
re: giveaways. I was pretty cross a cat (haha, again) when I found that out in your threads. Reminds me to go back and submit those tickets. Again.
Pretty much one of my intentions with regards to this thread. Clarification.
Pretty much. I'd like to appologize of having been part of the problem in-game once, since you're posting here, anyway.
But again, absolutely. Clarification.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
When I point out in reports what rules they do tend to break, however, and still see no action being taken, but see other posts later on being moderated that broke the same rules, I would very much still like feedback and clarification.
But that is neither here or there, with regards to 'naming and shaming.'
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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]