Overly Restrictive Posting Policies

[Sammael]

I just read the FAQ and I find some of the posting rules too restrictive. For example, "Thou shalt not argue with moderators or administrators in a public fashion." strikes me as particularly strange. And the "any other reason we see fit really" reminds me of... that other company.

 

I also do not understand the inability to discuss former... products... with their developers, considering that those developers no longer post at the former company's forums. I do not see how a developer can be free to discuss something at a RPG roundtable, yet he cannot do the same thing on a message board.

 

And drop the fake old English.

[Ewen Brown]

i think the "Thou shalt not argue with moderators or administrators in a public fashion." refers to personal matters/issues

[Sammael]

I don't think so... to me, it appears as if any sort of public questioning of the moderators is off-limits, which I find disturbing.

 

BTW, I think 30 seconds is too long for the flood limit.

[Ewen Brown]

guess we'll have to wait and see

[Magnum Opus]

I don't think so... to me, it appears as if any sort of public questioning of the moderators is off-limits, which I find distrubing.

 

BTW, I think 30 seconds is too long for the flood limit.

I don't know... one of the things that irritates me about message boards with too relaxed a policy is that it invariably leads to drivel being posted. If someone's got an issue with the admins, I don't think it's unreasonable expect them to deal with it in a private fashion via PM, as long as they get back to you in a relatively prompt manner. Besides, how often in your recollection has an admin responded differently to a public vs. private inquiry? On the one or two instances where I've had a problem with admins and the way they were adminning their particular boards, going public didn't make a whit of difference.

 

But even if they do mean that any public questioning of the moderators is off limits (something I'm not convinced of, BTW), yeah... it does seem a bit draconian. If it keeps the whining and personal attacks (polite criticism is something that seems to be pretty much unheard of on boards like this) off the boards where I've got to wade through it, I'm certainly willing to give it a shot and see how it works out.

 

Edit: I think the Olde English is fine. :D

[Sammael]

Drivel will get posted, though - that's the purpose of the Way Off Topic forum. I don't have a problem with strict enforcement of the rules (as long as the rules are clear), but they may wish to differentiate themselves from... the other forums, and that means the moderators will have to be a bit more open about what they are doing.

 

Bring back the Overseer!

[Magnum Opus]

I don't think there's any real need to try and puposefully differentiate themselves from... other forums. Either the rules they set her ewill work, or they won't. Of course, I'm presuming that enough was learned from... other forums... that, while they won't have to deliberately try and differentiate themselves, they won't necessarily try and emulate them, either.

 

I do agree that some of the wording in the FAQ is a bit vague.... also noticed a spelling mistake, I think. The boards are young, though.

 

But drvel is one of those things that never seems to stay where it's meant to stay, and right now I'm all for closing off as many opportunities for things that I'll find irritating as they can. Public inquisitions into the behaviour of the moderators is just one of those things.

[Josan]

Personally, I always liked arguements. It was a reason for me to force feed some clown a heapin' helpin' o'ban.

 

As for not being able to discuss some of the devs' older work... well, unless that other company said "no, you're not allowed, we'll sue" I don't see the problem. Suppose some one wants to ask MCA something about PS-T. Is MCA legally forbidden to comment, is he ashamed of the game or dis-interested? Beats me.

[Ewen Brown]

i think that part refered more to actual questions about the game "how do you this in this game" kind of stuff

 

i don't see why having a discussion about the game in genral would be a problem

[Gromnir]

rules w/o context is near meaningless... 'specially when the folks posting the rules is the ones enforcing those rules. you gots lots of rules, but until we see how they is enforced they is not helpful to us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think the moderator/administrator thing is understandable. If someone is moderated, or has a problem to solve with a moderator/administrator, they shouldn't make it public and go off on off-topic things. That should be left to private messages.

 

EDIT: But arguing with developers should be allowed. Hey, its what most of us are here for.

[SeanDMan]

If you can't argue with the devs, this isn't going to be very much fun at all. :D

[Gromnir]

not allowing argument with mods may effectively end any debate simply by their choice of posting in a thread. is this a good thing?

 

*shrug*

 

again, the rule is meaningless 'til we see how it is applied.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Phosphor]

I think outlined rules have to be overly strict in order to facilitate room for judgement, though still allowing judgement to be ultimately and justifiably be in the administration's hands.

When you look at what goes on in a message board, I think the admins need strict rules to maintain order. And since this is a new board for a new company, I don't think it's unreasonable for Obsidian to want some semblence of order and civility to start things off.

[Gromnir]

"I think outlined rules have to be overly strict in order to facilitate room for judgement, though still allowing judgement to be ultimately and justifiably be in the administration's hands. "

 

these is obsidian boards, and administration of boards and application of "rules" is in their hands regardless of what such rules say. initially posting rules that seems draconian serves no purpose at all save that people always complain more when they thinks that they is somehow loosing an entitlement... from a pr perspective, is always easier to be generous with a harsh rule than it is to try rewrite ever more increasingly restrictive rules.

 

we recall how the ip mods loved to link to the board rules... rules which not have no real meaning in light of fact that they was pretty ambiguous and in recognition that each and every mod seemed to interpret those rules different. linking such rules and even having such rules is pointless save that they is expected

[Xindell]

Having just gotten on these boards, and just read the rules, I don't really see why everyone is so worried. The rules don't seem terribly 'draconic' to me. I think you guys are really taking them a bit more harshly than they are intended. There's a big difference between 'arguing' with someone, and 'debating' with them. I suspect there's going to be no problem with having disagreements about things with devs or mods. And I find it extremely hard to believe that Obsidian really will give folks a hard time for honest, polite debate. However, the rule was put there to make it clear that if you have some kind of issue, or just want to argue, you need to keep it off the boards and keep it in private. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?

 

Regardless, I don't think the rules are bad, overly strict, or anything else. To each their own tho.

[Gromnir]

"There's a big difference between 'arguing' with someone, and 'debating' with them."

 

really? define.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Xindell]

What I'm referring to, and I suspect what Obsidian is referring to in their rules, is the connotation that comes with the words argue, as opposed to debate. When you hear the word argue, the tendancy is to picture a pointless shouting match between two people which is much more aggressive than constructive. While a debate is seen as more of a respectful exchange of ideas.

 

The impression I got from their posted rules is that they won't tolerate people mouthing off to devs and mods on these boards. But if a polite debate os going on on the boards, and a mod throws in his/her opinion, I don't suspect that immediately means the debate is over and no one is allowed to disagree.

 

Now, before you start trolling me, I completely understand that by strict definition, there is certainly little to no difference between a debate and an arguement. But the connotation behind the term is very relavant, and I believe it's the reason they used the word argue, rather than disagree with, debate, etc.

[Volourn]

Obsidian's boards = their rules = if you don't like it either whine about it, leave stage right, or take them to court over infringing your so called mythical rights. Your call. To me, it's not important. I'll post as I see fit. If they don't like they can tell me they don't and if their request seems reasonable I'll change it; if not; I'll be executed. See, that way, EVERYONE wins.

[Sammael]

Volourn, don't try to sound as if you make sense, because you don't.

[Volourn]

Hey, sometimes I do!

[Exitium]

Frankly I don't even want to try to understand what you just wrote, Volourn. If I interpreted that correctly, you just said that people who get executed have no right to complain about it, because if they do, people will be unhappy.

 

Wow.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Hey, sometimes I do!

I'll be damned, but that's quite the truth Vollie :D

[Volourn]

Extium: Wow, that's quite an interpretation!

 

Zant: Yup, I gues sit is.

[Gromnir]

"Now, before you start trolling me,"

 

not know what brought that on...

 

"There's a big difference between 'arguing' with someone, and 'debating' with them."

 

we does note that you claimed that there was a big difference 'tween arguing and debating, but at the same time you admits that your distinguishing the two is based on a subjective connotation of respective definitions. if the big difference is based on some subjective impression that is actually contradicted by the clear, black letter definitions of the respective words, then we is not sure how much of a guideline it provides.

 

we also note that even your connotative distinguishing seems to suggest that a continuum 'tween arguing and debating exists... at some point arguing can be polite enough so as to be recognized as debate, no? so, clearly there must exist some grey area 'tween the two extremes. how can there be a big difference 'tween arguing and debating if there is necessarily an obscure grey area where one will have a hard time identifying where debate stops and argument begins.

 

is no trolling here... is just an observation that your initial "argument" suggesting that rules clearly distinguish 'tween argument and debate is not nearly so clear as you suggest. if a obsidian mod does not like what Gromnir is saying, they can very easily see us as being argumentative. if they agree with what we says, then it is debate. most of us has seen debates on these boards that get "warm," and those is often the debates that result in the best info. the "arguing" v. "debating" thing honestly fails to give any real guideline for judging when a thread should be killed.

 

HA! Good Fun!