Zenimax: Why are you silencing dissent with regard to 1.6?

GreyBrow

Suppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint. When dissent is perceived as a threat, action may be taken to prevent continuing dissent or penalize dissidents.

For more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_dissent

I've seen so many threads with valid arguments and very good points shut down recently, as if Zenimax is refusing to even recognize that their argument is valid by engaging in a constructful discussion of the topic.

It's getting borderline Orwelian around here.

Tandor

You can hardly claim that they're suppressing discussion of 1.6, hopefully they're streamlining the topics as well as removing the more extreme and non-constructive comments. The purpose of this forum is, after all, discussion not dissent - which is not to say that there is no room for criticism as long as it is constructive.

Keep the comments constructive and polite, adding them to an existing topic where one exists rather than creating the umpteenth one on the same subject, and there'll be no need for moderation.

GreyBrow

GreyBrow wrote: »

... rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint.

L2R, then try again.

AngryNord

Half the friggin' frontpage is filled with posts about 1.6, they really need to start pruning them

GreyBrow

"If critics decide to "toe the mark" and "keep out of sight", the critic may be re-accepted by the opponent. This passive agreement without protest means that other dissents are likely to encounter the same difficulties."

Ignoring dissent and making people "just deal with it" until it goes away, rather than engaging with them in a discussion about their fears and concerns, is just another method of suppression.


To any other potential posters:

If you're going to respond, please, for the love of god, be intelligent enough to comprehend the issue.

Lord_Kreegan

You're not going to get a lot of participation in this thread if your primary intent is to insult the intelligence of other posters.

In any case, this is NOT a public forum. It is owned by ZOS. They can do with it whatever they like. Read the Terms of Service you agreed to when you signed up; they are allowed to moderate THEIR forums.

Game forums are an extension of a company's marketing efforts, so you SHOULD expect them to dampen dissent. You should expect shils and marketing department personnel posing as forum posters (although those posts are easily recognizable if you know what to look for). You should expect biased discussions with ludicrous one-sided arguments.

If you do not, then perhaps you should be questioning your own intelligence instead that of others.

Gyudan

I think that what's suppressing dissent the most are the 50 different threads on the very same subject, diluting the information and spreading guar dung everywhere on the forum. Thanks for adding one more to the pile.

Tavore1138

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Game forums are an extension of a company's marketing efforts, so you SHOULD expect them to dampen dissent. You should expect shils and marketing department personnel posing as forum posters (although those posts are easily recognizable if you know what to look for). You should expect biased discussions with ludicrous one-sided arguments.

While I don't disagree I also find it sad we have so many who just accept this as OK.

All hail our corporate masters!

KaneK899ub17_ESO

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Game forums are an extension of a company's marketing efforts, so you SHOULD expect them to dampen dissent. You should expect shils and marketing department personnel posing as forum posters (although those posts are easily recognizable if you know what to look for). You should expect biased discussions with ludicrous one-sided arguments.

While I don't disagree I also find it sad we have so many who just accept this as OK.

All hail our corporate masters!

Of course it's OK. It's THEIR forums, for Christ's sake! If they were going on Tamriel Foundry and demanding they remove any QQ posts, that might be something. If someone comes into my house and starts bad-mouthing me, I have the right to boot them out. Why doesn't ZOS on their own forums?

You can't say it's Orwellian or we're bowing to corporate masters when they own the platform from which you're shouting. Go shout somewhere else if they start censoring people here. Problem is, I still see 1.6 and "CP debacle" threads everywhere. If they're deleting repeats, good, get rid of some of the clutter.

Tavore1138

KaneK899ub17_ESO wrote: »

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Game forums are an extension of a company's marketing efforts, so you SHOULD expect them to dampen dissent. You should expect shils and marketing department personnel posing as forum posters (although those posts are easily recognizable if you know what to look for). You should expect biased discussions with ludicrous one-sided arguments.

While I don't disagree I also find it sad we have so many who just accept this as OK.

All hail our corporate masters!

Of course it's OK. It's THEIR forums, for Christ's sake! If they were going on Tamriel Foundry and demanding they remove any QQ posts, that might be something. If someone comes into my house and starts bad-mouthing me, I have the right to boot them out. Why doesn't ZOS on their own forums?

You can't say it's Orwellian or we're bowing to corporate masters when they own the platform from which you're shouting. Go shout somewhere else if they start censoring people here. Problem is, I still see 1.6 and "CP debacle" threads everywhere. If they're deleting repeats, good, get rid of some of the clutter.

So if news publishers or broadcasters make up news that is OK because they own the platform? False advertising is OK if the advertiser provides the medium? Censorship is OK as long as the medium is privately owned?

In a world where most mediums are privately owned that pretty much means the truth is whatever the owners of the medium wants it to be.

I feel comfortable saying that is Orwellian.

GreyBrow

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

So if news publishers or broadcasters make up news that is OK because they own the platform? False advertising is OK if the advertiser provides the medium? Censorship is OK as long as the medium is privately owned?

In a world where most mediums are privately owned that pretty much means the truth is whatever the owners of the medium wants it to be.

I feel comfortable saying that is Orwellian.

Praise Allah someone here has a brain.

+10 to you

ArconSeptim

Well they should make it live on PTS next Monday 5th January, I don't see any reason why not.

Merlin13KAGL

Tandor wrote: »

You can hardly claim that they're suppressing discussion of 1.6, hopefully they're streamlining the topics as well as removing the more extreme and non-constructive comments. The purpose of this forum is, after all, discussion not dissent - which is not to say that there is no room for criticism as long as it is constructive.

Keep the comments constructive and polite, adding them to an existing topic where one exists rather than creating the umpteenth one on the same subject, and there'll be no need for moderation.

@GreyBrow‌ , like what?? There are exactly 6 Closed threads in the first 10 pages of the General Discussion section.

They don't even nuke the thread - they just shut it down. It's still in plain sight, you just don't get to ramble on about it anymore.

As good fortune would have it, there are half a dozen ***** threads about the same thing at any given time, as it is - whatever the topic happens to be.

It's the duplicate BS @Tandor 's referring to. Not engaging in discussion on anything but their terms (their option) is a far cry from 'silencing dissent.'

If the conspiracy was real, don't you think your thread, your account...maybe even you would have been erased by now?

Please.

LonePirate

ArconSeptim wrote: »

Well they should make it live on PTS next Monday 5th January, I don't see any reason why not.

That's rich - expecting ZOS to do something its players actually want them to do. Thanks for the laugh!

Izzban

You ask for open discussions and the very first post that has a different viewpoint from your own you respond with,

GreyBrow wrote: »

L2R, then try again.

You, sir, are a hypocrite.

Slurg

Izzban wrote: »

You ask for open discussions and the very first post that has a different viewpoint from your own you respond with,

GreyBrow wrote: »

L2R, then try again.

You, sir, are a hypocrite.

Agree. You (meaning the OP) start a thread about ZOS suppressing dissent and then proceed to sneer at and insult the intelligence of anyone who dares to disagree with you.

All this "dissent" you throw around in your daily new threads on this topic is a bit premature considering none of us have even seen this new system and therefore don't have the knowledge to provide constructive feedback on it yet.

If I had to speculate I'd guess that ZOS isn't responding because:
A) they are short staffed due to holiday vacations (based an an email response I got to a CS ticket)
B ) they prefer to wait and have this conversation with us after it's on PTS and we have the information we need to have a real discussion on it.

ZOS_TristanK

Hello, all. It is never our intention to silence dissent. In fact, the only way that we can make changes that reflect what you all want to see is by carefully gathering your feedback, analyzing it, weighing the pros and cons, and implementing solutions.

Do we close threads? Yes. It's not a matter of which thread we like or which thread pats us on the back. We try to keep discussions consolidated as often as possible because when we gather your feedback or the devs go through looking to see what you're all talking about, it's easier and more efficient to look at a handful of threads than dozens.

We'd like to add that we will always enforce the Code of Conduct on these forums. The Code of Conduct is in place to keep our forums a safe environment, and whether a post is defending ESO or offering criticism, we must remove it if it is in violation of our rules. We encourage everyone to take a moment to familiarize yourselves with the Code of Conduct if you haven't already and, of course, to continue discussing 1.6 in a constructive way. That said, we are closing this thread, as it has become insulting and non-constructive.