About the Code of Conduct... Discuss!

The CoC is absolutely terrible, vague, and worst of all, applied differently depending on who you are.

I saw this coming a mile a way when they described the reasons for the change to begin with.



Hell I saw a support dude lock a thread in OT because it "had nothing to do with PoE or Gaming" I messaged him like bro can you please define "Off Topic". Needless to say I'm on the shitlist ever since and have to be way more diligent about making measured comments.

It wouldnt be so bad if they did their job even remotely consistently, but based on what I've seen, its unlikely.

Anyways I dont want to go any further here. For what it is worth, if GGG even reads this, It's fair criticism I think to say that GGG's CoC isnt very good, and administrated poorly. I wish they would do better, but it is what it is. At this point it's more of an annoyance, that I chuckle about from time to time. Old GGG is long dead. Long live new woke GGG...

...To this day I'm in awe that the CoC framework we came up with is STILL in use. And that's all it was -- a beginning. A set of vague guidelines upon which I fully expected GGG to expand when they dispensed with voluntary moderation and employed support/customer service staff. Look at any other forum guideline/code of conduct for ANY other official gaming community of comparable size to PoE and you'll see something comprehensive, detailed and actually useful for players/community members.

The PoE CoC is a small set of poorly-translated commands compared to every other game's user manual. I'm reminded of those anti-desiccation packets: DO NOT EAT. NO EAT. NO NOT EAT. Why? NO CARE DON'T EAT.

The huge irony is if they took the time to create a proper set of rules with clear sub-sets and examples and whatnot, Support's job would be much easier. This is a classic example of working hard in the short term to ease long term stress and difficulty -- something TencentGGG understand (there's some real forward thinking in their build deployments) but in practice struggle to implement because they're spinning ten thousand plates at once.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

The huge irony is if they took the time to create a proper set of rules with clear sub-sets and examples and whatnot, Support's job would be much easier.

Shout out to Support: I know at least ONE of you has to read this, and I bet it's kinda entertaining having your job talked about.

Could be wrong, though.

Hey, how old are you guys/gals, anyway? Your quietness makes you seem ageless. :]

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Not my monkey, not my circus. They saw it, I saw it, I'm sure others did too. You didn't. Like I said: either you're feigning ignorance or you're actually ignorant as to what you're actually doing and saying, and neither is a situation with which I want to engage beyond pointing it out. No one can learn the lessons for you. Look at the two things you posted again not from your perspective but from the perspective of someone who is told, whose job it is, to curtail controversial, inflammatory topics. That's the best I can do for you. That's as good as this gets.

Look at it from the perspective of a censor you mean. I can indeed see how a censor could see a lot of things as dangerous. A LOT of things...

Tbh, this sounds like the classic "you know it when you see it" woo, a definition used always as a cover for the fact that you aren't able to come up with a proper, non-subjective definition. Imo, they're probably afraid to come up with a more well thought-out set of definitions, as they'd then have to deal with 'rules lawyers' as they're so derisively called. And they don't want to be bothered to do that. But it's rather telling which group of people it is who made lawyering somehow a bad thing. You'd think understanding the rules well enough that you can effectively argue them would be a good thing (their ever present encouragement to us to go read them would certainly suggest they want us to learn them), but of course the people actually administering said rules don't really see it that way. Rules are a way of constraining our behavior - the last thing they want is for them to become a constraint on their own decision-making. Also, a reminder that these rules weren't community decided.

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Not my monkey, not my circus. They saw it, I saw it, I'm sure others did too. You didn't. Like I said: either you're feigning ignorance or you're actually ignorant as to what you're actually doing and saying, and neither is a situation with which I want to engage beyond pointing it out. No one can learn the lessons for you. Look at the two things you posted again not from your perspective but from the perspective of someone who is told, whose job it is, to curtail controversial, inflammatory topics. That's the best I can do for you. That's as good as this gets.

Look at it from the perspective of a censor you mean. I can indeed see how a censor could see a lot of things as dangerous. A LOT of things...

"

bwam wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

The huge irony is if they took the time to create a proper set of rules with clear sub-sets and examples and whatnot, Support's job would be much easier.

Shout out to Support: I know at least ONE of you has to read this, and I bet it's kinda entertaining having your job talked about.

Could be wrong, though.

Hey, how old are you guys/gals, anyway? Your quietness makes you seem ageless. :]

You can talk about support, and forum guidelines, and be critical or post feedback.

You just cant talk about specific support members, or moderation of specific PoE forum goers.

Its their job to read things they may or may not agree with.

"

Exile009 wrote:

Look at it from the perspective of a censor you mean. I can indeed see how a censor could see a lot of things as dangerous. A LOT of things...

Yes it is. Words are the most dangerous weapons of all.

"

Exile009 wrote:

Tbh, this sounds like the classic "you know it when you see it" woo, a definition used always as a cover for the fact that you aren't able to come up with a proper, non-subjective definition. Imo, they're probably afraid to come up with a more well thought-out set of definitions, as they'd then have to deal with 'rules lawyers' as they're so derisively called. And they don't want to be bothered to do that. But it's rather telling which group of people it is who made lawyering somehow a bad thing. You'd think understanding the rules well enough that you can effectively argue them would be a good thing (their ever present encouragement to us to go read them would certainly suggest they want us to learn them), but of course the people actually administering said rules don't really see it that way. Rules are a way of constraining our behavior - the last thing they want is for them to become a constraint on their own decision-making. Also, a reminder that these rules weren't community decided.

Ambiguous rules are more beneficial to rule makers. Clearly defined rules are more beneficial to rule breakers.

Who let the customers decide how to run their companies?

"

awesome999 wrote:

Who let the customers decide how to run their companies?

Not to sidetrack too much, but every good and successful company is essentially run based on the habits, feedback, and overall behavior of their customers.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

awesome999 wrote:

Who let the customers decide how to run their companies?

Not to sidetrack too much, but every good and successful company is essentially run based on the habits, feedback, and overall behavior of their customers.

Not the same THING YO. We analyze their data critically and valued their inputs to help us earn more money. This include ignoring their inputs when it doesn't.

Their house their rules. End of story. I know it's hard to understand private property rights for some but that's bedrock of western civ not free speech