Code of Conduct Changes - Do better at least for optics

"

aggromagnet wrote:

They'd be really hard-pressed to convince me that this rule change isn't coming from Tencent in some way.

and also

"

I just think it's hilarious that this happens around the anniversary of a certain event which won't be named. Sure, it could be a coincidence, but...

in my country there's a saying : "to think ill is a sin, but you're often right".

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the idea that political and religious discussions are "gateway topics" and that cutting them will "significantly reduce the strain on bour staff for the benefit of their mental well-being" is a bad joke.

I'm going to disagree. Imagine for a moment that you are a GGG moderator. You have a VERY strong opinion on a certain thread, but you are not allowed to place your own comments in it because then it could be construed as GGG's opinion.

You watch this thread go on for what - close to 2,000 pages? - in its three iterations - yet you cannot speak.

You're joking, right? Have the moderator create an unpowered alt to post edgy comments with, problem solved. Just don't reveal alt is mod-owned.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the idea that political and religious discussions are "gateway topics" and that cutting them will "significantly reduce the strain on bour staff for the benefit of their mental well-being" is a bad joke.

I'm going to disagree. Imagine for a moment that you are a GGG moderator. You have a VERY strong opinion on a certain thread, but you are not allowed to place your own comments in it because then it could be construed as GGG's opinion.

You watch this thread go on for what - close to 2,000 pages? - in its three iterations - yet you cannot speak.

You're joking, right? Have the moderator create an unpowered alt to post edgy comments with, problem solved. Just don't reveal alt is mod-owned.

Yeah i didn't quite understand the point behind his post.

It's like the totally forgot the part where this is a FFA forum board without any buy-in restrictions to partake in conversations.

When being a moderator i expect a golden rule approuch to every participant in the forums, but i don't see how this restricts a moderator to partake in the discussion himself in his off-time on a seperate account.

I tend to think i would welcome somebody joining a discussion with skin in the game. And i reckon anybody would that doesn't have a fixed world view and joins a forum to broaden his perspectives on certain topics.

Peace,

-Boem-

There are a number of moving parts here and quite a bit a subtle context.

From the appearance of Tencent tightening the vice, to the very sly inclusion of "inflammatory" topics, and virtue signaling that the "mental health" of GGG moderators was at the heart of the decision.

Those of us that are dubious on the change will have nothing to do but smirk, when this CoC spreads to include criticism of design and development.

If you think this isnt possible, just remember how sensitive Chris got about the 1000 hours comment, or how defensive they got about Synthesis (we wont crunch so you got shit) which is hilarious.

When people started praising Chris (and the dev team) for avoiding a crunch, by putting out an underdeveloped, uninspired, buggy league, I knew we had jumped the shark.

I see where this is going, and frankly I told you so wont even feel good when it happens (and its coming)

Politics and religion should not be discussed in this forum. Discussion about them will only lead to unproductive debate and verbal abuse. They belong in youtube, facebook, and forums that cater to these kind of topics.

"

elemental_oasis wrote:

Politics and religion should not be discussed in this forum. Discussion about them will only lead to unproductive debate and verbal abuse. They belong in youtube, facebook, and forums that cater to these kind of topics.

Again that's not what it says. Its says any inflammatory topic (whatever that means) such as politics or religion.

They have left open the door to moderate or delete ANYTHING they deem "inflammatory".

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

elemental_oasis wrote:

Politics and religion should not be discussed in this forum. Discussion about them will only lead to unproductive debate and verbal abuse. They belong in youtube, facebook, and forums that cater to these kind of topics.

Again that's not what it says. Its says any inflammatory topic (whatever that means) such as politics or religion.

They have left open the door to moderate or delete ANYTHING they deem "inflammatory".

politics and religion topics are path to inflammation. It's ggg mistake not to include this in their forum rules since the beginning.

I find it highly curious and interesting that people support the base-line notion that discussions about politics and religion inadvertendly lead to inpolite behavior or communication.

We had a whole debate on the abortion thing going for over nine pages i think(i assume this is also a contentious subject for a lot of people) and as far as i can recollect nobody crossed the line on that subject though obviously very varying opinions were being put forth from all participants.

I don't see how people caring for a subject makes the subject volatile intrinsically.

I would say that off-topic on these boards generally has an abundance of good faith actors in comparison to bad faith actors.

Not talking about personality traits here, just civility in discussion.

Peace,

-Boem-

politics and religion topics are more potent than abortion.

"

elemental_oasis wrote:

politics and religion topics are more potent than abortion.

Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas.

Peace,

-Boem-