Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 118

Thread: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

  1. #61
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    I think moderation is very fair, and I have not encountered a moderator who was off his rocker or abusing his authority -- nothing like that. I have however seen that some mods pop in and out of an area have no idea the context of what's been happening there consistently for over 6 months* and give the obvious guy the infraction, while the guy in the shadows whose been pushing his buttons for weeks on end goes unpunished. I know it's a hard situation to moderate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    As always, use the report button if you feel you're being flamed. I don't think you've ever reported something.
    In over ten years, before at the previous url 2004ish, and in all my years here once I finally created another account in 2006, I had never once had an issue where I had to report anything -- nothing even close to that! Until now. And one single member was the cause of that, and I could not sit idly by any longer.

    *That is not directed at you Ishan, but thinking of a couple mods who breeze in and out to pitch in with some moderation but weren't even remotely active in the forum.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    The very first thing about TWC moderation is that it's comprised of gamers, who're humans\average guys like everybody else here, except few sexy people like mitch, or wangrin with his swag. So obviously we can make mistakes and each of us has the strength to admit it when we do it. I have done my share of blunders and have apologized publicly when i felt it was warranted. So that is why we always put emphasis to first PM the moderator in a friendly manner to see what's going on and where we're coming from or correct us if you feel we did something wrong. If it doesn't work out then go to commentary and have a chat with site admins.

    Anyways for Rome 2, there are far more better moderators than me, you give me unnecessary credit. Radzeer, LestaT etc. And our team is comprised of people who share different opinions about the game. Some like the game, some don't. This thread can show 2 moderators arguing each other over Rome 2 (Lest and me). So community need to realize that moderation has a neutral stance here and knows what this forum is about. And being regulars eventually we will know who likes to bait and where not to infract a frustrated member being goaded. When to use friendly approach, tough love, infractions and outright bans.

    If some moderator is relatively new or was absent for few weeks due to his RL obligations then he will be brought up to speed with things. There's always one or more active guys who knows what is going on and what a person is doing. Lot of people report each other which gives a quick hint that there's heat between 2 individuals.
    Last edited by Ishan; April 02, 2014 at 02:13 PM.

  3. #63
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,313

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    Wow all you want, it's just facts. Members who are generally goaded and insulted are by people who dislike the game and don't appreciate people who hold different opinions.
    I re-post an old post of mine:
    I don't see how this addresses my point. You are missing who is doing the trolling because they are also doing the reporting.

  4. #64

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    I don't see how this addresses my point. You are missing who is doing the trolling because they are also doing the reporting.
    You're not aware of the full picture here and you never will be because of the last part alone. You have no idea who reports who and it's just a guess from your side. And like i said, moderation is aware of people who troll\bait members and then report them when they finally snap back on them (this is the most silliest tricks in the book of trolling and moderation is aware of it). And you don't know whether they're infracted or not.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    I want to ask something. Isn't systematically answering posts with even fantastic basis just to defend a position "I like it" or "I do not like it" a kind of derailing-trolling subtle attitude? And it has appearance of inocent behaviour. I think it is the hardest thing to moderat if not impossible. But I have seen it.. For example, saying the game is worse or better than previous game in a feature that the previous game really did not have. Also taking someone word and créate a whole suposed thinking that the original poster of that word did not have.
    Last edited by Bethencourt; April 02, 2014 at 02:28 PM.

  6. #66

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharpe View Post
    I have to ask - if you guys hate the last few CA games so much, why do you care so much?
    Insult removed - pannonian

    Trust me this isnt about "hate".
    Last edited by pannonian; April 02, 2014 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Insult removed

  7. #67

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethencourt View Post
    I want to ask something. Isn't systematically answering posts with even fantastic basis just to defend a position "I like it" or "I do not like it" a kind of derailing-trolling subtle attitude? And it has appearance of inocent behaviour. I think it is the hardest thing to moderat if not impossible. But I have seen it..
    Trolling is not a ToS violation and there's a good reason for that. One man's trolling is another man's entertainment. It has to reach a certain point where it becomes disruptive and violates ToS. The very best thing that helps is a smart community that doesn't get baited easily. And obviously once moderation is certain about a troll account then it's in the red zone.

  8. #68
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,313

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    You're not aware of the full picture here and you never will be because of the last part alone. You have no idea who reports who and it's just a guess from your side. And like i said, moderation is aware of people who troll\bait members and then report them when they finally snap back on them (this is the most silliest tricks in the book of trolling and moderation is aware of it). And you don't know whether they're infracted or not.
    If I post an absurd argument in defense of a game mechanic in a thread that is about the need for revamp or that describes a design problem then you are going to roll with that because it's defending/accepting of the game. The converse once was true but it is no longer regardless of absurdity. And what makes this worse is that a lot of this stuff that is criticism should be settled fact by now. Anyone who comes into a naval battle criticism thread and says "you aren't doing it right" is trolling.
    Last edited by Huberto; April 02, 2014 at 02:36 PM.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    Trolling is not a ToS violation and there's a good reason for that. One man's trolling is another man's entertainment. It has to reach a certain point where it becomes disruptive and violates ToS. The very best thing that helps is a smart community that doesn't get baited easily. And obviously once moderation is certain about a troll account then it's in the red zone.
    and that's just the problem isnt it.

    you are taking sides and protecting the drivel/trolling because they arent breaking any "tos".

    and denying that the games isnt average or good at best (and after all arent we striving for perfection).

    how many times have u seen the trolls comments "i think it's satifactory" type comments. it's enough to make you sick.

    and yet u allow it. and I dont mean you I am directing this at the forum owner.

    in fact no offence Ishan i'd rather he answered these posts. he and mike simpson have a lot to answer for I reckon...

    they are the individuals who are most likely directly responsible for bringing this forum+the game down.

    and yes i believe allowing inane drivel/apologetic posts and catering 2 12yr olds (i.e bee onagers) bringing it down. it proves in my opinion money>substance/quality.
    Last edited by Totalheadache; April 02, 2014 at 02:36 PM.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    The words "fanboys" and "haters" are clear examples of what I mean. They really mean "you are stupid". Maybe their users should be warned.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    If I post an absurd argument in defense of a game mechanic in a thread that is about the need for revamp or describes a design problem then you are going to roll with that because it's defending/accepting of the game. The converse once was true but it is no longer. And what makes this worse is that a lot of this stuff that is criticism should be settled fact by now. Anyone who comes into a naval battle criticism thread and says "you aren't doing it right" is trolling.
    And that's why i lay more emphasis on regulars being smarter here and ignoring it completely, i mean if one is certain it's trolling. You guys can argue with him prove him wrong if you can on technical levels but otherwise it will remain a differing opinion, whether he's being serious or not is not verifiable, unfortuantely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Totalheadache View Post
    and that's just the problem isnt it.

    you are taking sides and protecting the drivel/trolling because they arent breaking any "tos".

    and denying that the games isnt average or good at best (and after all arent we striving for perfection).

    how many times have u seen the trolls comments "i think it's satifactory" type comments. it's enough to make you sick.

    and yet u allow it. and I dont mean you I am directing this at the forum owner.

    in fact no offence Ishan i'd rather he answered these posts. he and mike simpson have a lot to answer for I reckon...

    they are the individuals who are most likely directly responsible for bringing this forum+the game down.

    and yes i believe allowing inane drivel/apologetic posts and catering 2 12yr olds (i.e bee onagers) bringing it down. it proves in my opinion money>substance/quality.
    And that's where you yourself have to change. It's not drivel or trolling if someone says it's "satisfactory". It's a different opinion that needs to be respected and accepted. One can easily brush off such posts by "Agree to disagree".

    And you should know there are great many people who do like Rome 2. Especially after 10 patches now. Btw Rome is PG-13 game, one could argue that "Ishan you're 27 years old and play a video game for little kids. Get a life man." So these are all opinions which shouldn't go to the point of fights\arguments & forum disruption.
    Last edited by Ishan; April 02, 2014 at 02:47 PM.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Obviously the best reaction to trolling is ignoring it.

  13. #73
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,313

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    And that's why i lay more emphasis on regulars being smarter here and ignoring it completely, i mean if one is certain it's trolling. You guys can argue with him prove him wrong if you can on technical levels but otherwise it will remain a differing opinion, whether he's being serious or not is not verifiable, unfortuantely.
    It's a one-line nothing to back it up assertion that is pro-game in a critical thread seems to me you should either remove such pro-game posts routinely or permit more 'expansive' pro-con discussion without recourse to the sticky threads or selectively removing criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishan View Post
    And you should know there are great many people who do like Rome 2. Especially after 10 patches now. Btw Rome is PG-13 game, one could argue that "Ishan you're 27 years old and play a video game for little kids. Get a life man." So these are all opinions which shouldn't go to the point of fights\arguments & forum disruption.
    Yes there are more fans of Rome II now especially since many critics have departed the forum in frustration. And these fans grow more vocal in their displeasure at hearing commonsense complaints and criticisms. They do lot's of goading and trolling and incite arguments with sophistry. I don't have any specific folks in mind when I say this there are many.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethencourt View Post
    Obviously the best reaction to trolling is ignoring it.
    Of course it is. But I am trying to show Ishan where he is wrong in assuming that critics of TWR2 dominate the disruptive behavior in the TWR2 GD forum. This is an absolute minority that is hyper sensitive about likiing the game, quick to whine about criticisms, engage in ridiculous arguments in defense of TWR2 or CA and thus bait members who are critical of the game or CA. Moderation has some responsibility here, either to let critics respond and respond expansively or to moderate fans' behavior more.
    Last edited by Huberto; April 02, 2014 at 03:14 PM.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharpe View Post
    I have to ask - if you guys hate the last few CA games so much, why do you care so much?
    Reminds me of americans asking "why do you hate america so much" when the Iraq war started completely oblivious to the main problem.
    Dont hesitate to delete that post and sharpe's as I feel its off-topic and disruptive.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    It's a one-line nothing to back it up assertion that is pro-game in a critical thread seems to me you should either remove such pro-game posts routinely or permit more 'expansive' pro-con discussion without recourse to the sticky threads or selectively removing criticism.
    It's an opinion and unless there's a rule in place that someone needs to post some proof there's nothing we can do about it. Like if someone says "Rome 2 for me runs perfect at 200+ fps" then we can place a thread rule to show the benchmark along with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    Yes there are more fans of Rome II now especially since many critics have departed the forum in frustration. And these fans grow more vocal in their displeasure at hearing commonsense complaints and criticisms. They do lot's of goading and trolling and incite arguments with sophistry. I don't have any specific folks in mind when I say this there are many.
    There's no declaration from members leaving the site out of frustration just because they were supposedly trolled by the people who like the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    Of course it is. But I am trying to show Ishan where he is wrong in assuming that critics of TWR2 dominate the disruptive behavior in the TWR2 GD forum. This is an absolute minority that is hyper sensitive about likiing the game, quick to whine about criticisms, engage in ridiculous arguments in defense of TWR2 or CA and thus bait members who are critical of the game or CA. Moderation has some responsibility here, either to let critics respond and respond expansively or to moderate fans' behavior more.
    I can show you this thread itself. Where a critic just broke ToS.

    In any case, you can PM me the names of such people and links whenever you see them. TWC Staff can provide some explanation if you think we're not moderating such people. You are also free to bring posts by first removing member's name and ask moderation overseers why it's not being deleted or moderated by us.

  16. #76
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    It's a one-line nothing to back it up assertion that is pro-game in a critical thread seems to me you should either remove such pro-game posts routinely or permit more 'expansive' pro-con discussion without recourse to the sticky threads or selectively removing criticism.
    Herein lay the main problem that I personally have with what has been going on in the forums for months now.

    Let's illustrate it quickly, bear with me:

    1. Let's say, we have a thread about how sieges are broken in Rome II. Everyone basically agrees (to varying degrees) and discusses the problems, possible solutions, vents frustrations about torches and pathfinding, etc.

    2. Then a usual suspect swoops in and says, no the sieges are great, they work way better than past TW games such as Rome I and Medieval 2, and proceeds to derail the thread where people were actually offering solutions and coming up with ideas.

    3. People point out where this is misinformed on a very basic level, and even if defensible regarding a vanilla release, by the equivalent of 10 patches in (Kingdoms expansion, etc) those issues were long gone yet the Rome2 defender keeps up a high level of posting, continually derailing the thread.

    4. The Rome2 defender even responds with a blatant lie/distortion/fantasy (and this is specific to Huberto's point) about the way the previous games worked, claiming that sieges work better in Rome2 because of X, Y, Z -- all of which are demonstrably, factually, false, and makes up lies about the previous TW engine mechanics, also which are demonstrably, factually, false.

    5. The thread is further derailed by people's whose minds are so blown at this absurd position and you suddenly have 10, 20, 50 people all falling over each other to show how wrong the Rome2 defender is -- citing CA sources, engine mechanics, creating gameplay videos and posting them on Youtube specifically to illustrate it all and, Zeus strike me down with a lightning bolt right now if you don't see how disruptive this is yet.....

    6. And yet nothing is ever done about the Rome 2 defender, only the people calling him out as liar, troll, etc are infracted, even banned.

    Again, we're not just talking about opinion here. We ALL have differing opinions. We're talking about willfull (or delusional?) lies and made up assertions that cause everyone else to respond and the whole thread is blown out.

    SO Huberto's point is so valid is hurts. If moderation is going to crack down on those of us who get too emotional and lash out at these people -- well so be it -- but for the sake of truth, please strike these false assertion/derail posters down a notch so we can all carry on with our real business.

  17. #77
    Arbitrary Crusader's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In his own delusional mind
    Posts
    6,876

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethencourt View Post
    The words "fanboys" and "haters" are clear examples of what I mean. They really mean "you are stupid". Maybe their users should be warned.
    Nah. While I do get what you mean, those words aren't the same as, "You are stupid"; unless, it something along lines like "You're a stupid fanboy and vice versa.

    Those words, at least from where I am seeing them, are use as a dismissive term to dismiss other members' opinion.

    ♪ Now it's over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want, or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do

  18. #78

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbitrary Crusader View Post
    Nah. While I do get what you mean, those words aren't the same as, "You are stupid"; unless, it something along lines like "You're a stupid fanboy and vice versa.

    Those words, at least from where I am seeing them, are use as a dismissive term to dismiss other members' opinion.
    Agreed. However these words have proved themselves to be disruptive enough in rome 2 because both the sides take this way too personally and that's why moderation will make attempts to remind users to criticize the posts not the posters, as illustrated by the ToS. They won't be infracted for this but if they fail to acknowledge our request they might be.

  19. #79
    Squid's Avatar Opifex
    Patrician Artifex Technical Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Frozen waste lands of the north
    Posts
    17,760
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by Totalheadache View Post
    you are taking sides and protecting the drivel/trolling because they arent breaking any "tos"
    Of course, for moderation there are only two sides, it breaks the ToS or it doesn't, everything else is irrelevant.

    and denying that the games isnt average or good at best (and after all arent we striving for perfection).

    how many times have u seen the trolls comments "i think it's satifactory" type comments. it's enough to make you sick.
    Those are opinions and moderation is not the business of sensoring opinions just because some people do not like them. As long as the opinion is expressed without violating the ToS then the opinion, no matter how offensive or reprehensible, is acceptable to be posted.

    and yet u allow it. and I dont mean you I am directing this at the forum owner
    He has answered it, see his comments on other related types of debates where some of the opinions expressed are considered ridiculously offensive or reprehensible to the vast majority of people (e.g. holaucast denial is one that crops up regularly).

    in fact no offence Ishan i'd rather he answered these posts. he and mike simpson have a lot to answer for I reckon...
    I'm not sure what mike simpson has to do with moderation policy on TWC but fine and as said above GED has commented on these types of questions.

    they are the individuals who are most likely directly responsible for bringing this forum+the game down.

    and yes i believe allowing inane drivel/apologetic posts and catering 2 12yr olds (i.e bee onagers) bringing it down. it proves in my opinion money>substance/quality.
    You're doing the exact thing as the members your complaining about and you don't even see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethencourt View Post
    The words "fanboys" and "haters" are clear examples of what I mean. They really mean "you are stupid". Maybe their users should be warned.
    No they mean you blindly support your side of the debate. Is it nice, perhaps not, but moderation is not in the business of making sure people are nice. Personally I think it's a poor way to argue to dismiss a person's post/argument just because they like/dislike the game, but the site does not enforce proper debating rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    If I post an absurd argument in defense of a game mechanic in a thread that is about the need for revamp or that describes a design problem then you are going to roll with that because it's defending/accepting of the game. The converse once was true but it is no longer regardless of absurdity. And what makes this worse is that a lot of this stuff that is criticism should be settled fact by now. Anyone who comes into a naval battle criticism thread and says "you aren't doing it right" is trolling.
    As long as it can be reasonably discussed, even if that means posting "that's not realistic" and is within the rules than it's more than fine for the member to post. They are expressing their opinion just like you are allowed to express yours, within the ToS.
    Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan
    Click for my tools and tutorials
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein

  20. #80
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO

    This thread is for discussing the topic "Reorganization for Rome 2 subforum - why a subforum for criticsm is needed for Rome 2 IMHO", and related discussion thereof. If you wish to discuss moderation unrelated to this, the Moderation Commentary thread is the place to be.

    And if you need a refresher, here's the ToS. Please follow the rules.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •