A Plan and Method for Stopping ESO Threads From Being Derailed and Closed

DoctorESO

Morgul667 wrote: »

Who gives the demerits ? If moderators they will be too busy

If people, then it will be a mess, I dont agree with you -> Demerit, there will be that kind of behaviour

Moderators, yes. And I think it will create work for them, which goes against the feasibility of the idea. But on second thought, what if right now, we all reported every ad hominem attack we saw? They would have to deal with it. If that's the case, then maybe we can use the demerit system (see the OP for a rough idea of would be implemented).

DoctorESO

DuskMarine wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

A lot of the threads on these forums become derailed and closed due to passionate posters letting their emotions get the best of them and hurling personal insults at those who disagree. Regardless of how passionate they are and how much they disagree with others, people should debate the issues on the merits instead of making personal attacks on other posters.

A plan and method for stopping ESO threads from being derailed and closed is this: give demerits to people who make ad hominem attacks, and temporarily suspend their posting privileges when they reach a certain number of demerits. Simply reporting someone is insufficient; sometimes, they (rightfully) do not get disciplined - the idea here is not about getting people warned or banned for violating forum rules, but about getting people to focus on debating the issues instead of using ad hominem attacks. So the demerit system would be separate from the disciplinary system. This is easier said than done, of course, and the idea as stated would require a significant time commitment from moderators. But let's use this thread to give your opinion about the idea, and if you like it, to flesh out how it could be implemented or at least modified so it could be feasible.

For those who aren't familiar with ad hominem attacks, here's a brief definition from Wikipedia (and for you researchers out there, forgive me for citing to Wikipedia): "Ad hominem . . .is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Here's an example from a sitcom:

Attacker: Should our nation normalize relations with that country?

Debater: The war's been over for 10 years. That country is no longer a threat, but instead could be a valuable ally and trading partner, so it makes perfect sense to normalize relations with them.

Attacker: You moron, what do you know about anything?! You're a frightened little drone that has no life! If you're so keen on normalizing something, why don't you start with your head!

the bad thing is the you get more flies with honey rather than vinegar thing just doesnt work with people especially when their already irate. you have no other choice but to get mean.

So I guess this idea is sort of in the negative reinforcement category. If you get mean, you'll get your posting privileges taken away for some time. Maybe that causes people to not get mean in the future?

Knowledge

DoctorESO wrote: »

DuskMarine wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

A lot of the threads on these forums become derailed and closed due to passionate posters letting their emotions get the best of them and hurling personal insults at those who disagree. Regardless of how passionate they are and how much they disagree with others, people should debate the issues on the merits instead of making personal attacks on other posters.

A plan and method for stopping ESO threads from being derailed and closed is this: give demerits to people who make ad hominem attacks, and temporarily suspend their posting privileges when they reach a certain number of demerits. Simply reporting someone is insufficient; sometimes, they (rightfully) do not get disciplined - the idea here is not about getting people warned or banned for violating forum rules, but about getting people to focus on debating the issues instead of using ad hominem attacks. So the demerit system would be separate from the disciplinary system. This is easier said than done, of course, and the idea as stated would require a significant time commitment from moderators. But let's use this thread to give your opinion about the idea, and if you like it, to flesh out how it could be implemented or at least modified so it could be feasible.

For those who aren't familiar with ad hominem attacks, here's a brief definition from Wikipedia (and for you researchers out there, forgive me for citing to Wikipedia): "Ad hominem . . .is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Here's an example from a sitcom:

Attacker: Should our nation normalize relations with that country?

Debater: The war's been over for 10 years. That country is no longer a threat, but instead could be a valuable ally and trading partner, so it makes perfect sense to normalize relations with them.

Attacker: You moron, what do you know about anything?! You're a frightened little drone that has no life! If you're so keen on normalizing something, why don't you start with your head!

the bad thing is the you get more flies with honey rather than vinegar thing just doesnt work with people especially when their already irate. you have no other choice but to get mean.

So I guess this idea is sort of in the negative reinforcement category. If you get mean, you'll get your posting privileges taken away for some time. Maybe that causes people to not get mean in the future?

I'm really for anything that deters people from getting mean.

Azuramoonstar

DoctorESO wrote: »

DuskMarine wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

A lot of the threads on these forums become derailed and closed due to passionate posters letting their emotions get the best of them and hurling personal insults at those who disagree. Regardless of how passionate they are and how much they disagree with others, people should debate the issues on the merits instead of making personal attacks on other posters.

A plan and method for stopping ESO threads from being derailed and closed is this: give demerits to people who make ad hominem attacks, and temporarily suspend their posting privileges when they reach a certain number of demerits. Simply reporting someone is insufficient; sometimes, they (rightfully) do not get disciplined - the idea here is not about getting people warned or banned for violating forum rules, but about getting people to focus on debating the issues instead of using ad hominem attacks. So the demerit system would be separate from the disciplinary system. This is easier said than done, of course, and the idea as stated would require a significant time commitment from moderators. But let's use this thread to give your opinion about the idea, and if you like it, to flesh out how it could be implemented or at least modified so it could be feasible.

For those who aren't familiar with ad hominem attacks, here's a brief definition from Wikipedia (and for you researchers out there, forgive me for citing to Wikipedia): "Ad hominem . . .is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Here's an example from a sitcom:

Attacker: Should our nation normalize relations with that country?

Debater: The war's been over for 10 years. That country is no longer a threat, but instead could be a valuable ally and trading partner, so it makes perfect sense to normalize relations with them.

Attacker: You moron, what do you know about anything?! You're a frightened little drone that has no life! If you're so keen on normalizing something, why don't you start with your head!

the bad thing is the you get more flies with honey rather than vinegar thing just doesnt work with people especially when their already irate. you have no other choice but to get mean.

So I guess this idea is sort of in the negative reinforcement category. If you get mean, you'll get your posting privileges taken away for some time. Maybe that causes people to not get mean in the future?

being "mean" can be a bit subjective when talking about text posting. tone of voice does not translate. One persons "you are being mean" can be another persons "i'm blunt, and don't sugar coat my words". It doesn't mean they are being mean.

just a bit of a pro tip, don't be an sjw. ff14 forums got ruined due to posting requests like this, they strike and ban people for almost any little thing. I rather not see that here. Everyone comes from different walks of life, living conditions, and live with a wide range of disabilities.

We come to these forums to give our opinions, give our support. I rather not see ff14 and WoWs easy to manipulate mass reporting and see people get ban over minor things. My boyfriend who played ff14 was perma ban from the forums for trying to explain to someone that ff14 is not sexist. He was not mean in anyway, but was ban due to mass reporting.

Like i also stated I was ban from WoW for 72 hours just for asking how to report people, all because i used the term I was called. I wasn't calling anyone the word, but was ban.

That is stuff you are asking for.

Sting864

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

I also propose they make it a rule that youre only allowed to create a certain number of threads within a certain time period. And once you hit that cap you are locked out from making new threads. This will help with the spam and slow down the incessant creation of threads that are created with the sole purpose of making the OPs opinion the centerpiece of a discussion thats already in progress elsewhere.

Yeah because limiting speech is a liberating thing to do....

Sevn

Eyro wrote: »

Usually what I see lead to things going off the rails when I see it, is both the op and the person debating not letting it go.

Usually looks like this...

Op: I think it is important the we all remember that The crown store helps support the game we play, so it is not some evil force.

Poster1: I play games like this for the cosmetics and a large portion of what I like is locked in the crown store. So to me it is evil.

Now most at this point would say these two views are never going to align, walk away. But instead we continue.

Op: with out the money from the crown store the game closes and you get nothing.

Poster1: I get nothing now because as I said I want cosmetics.

Op: they have to make money some how they are a business.

Poster1: so sell equipment instead.

Op: that is pay to win.

Poster1: what do I care, I don’t pvp. I want to earn cosmetics in game.

And so on for 3-5 pages. Never going anywhere until finally one of them snaps and goes, ‘Your Stupid.’

All because they couldn’t look at each other and go, I disagree with you, you disagree with me. And that is ok. Im going to walk away now.

This in a nutshell. I don't expect people to agree with every opinion I put out and I appreciate those that articulate why. What I can't stand is when someone states their opinion as fact, supported with numbers they pulled out of their bumhole and go on and on about why their opinion is more valid than another's.

I'm guilty of entertaining these players for far too long because it is entertaining, but I'm always the first to walk away. To top it off if you disagree with them you're white knighting for Zos, all because you'd rather put your trust in the people with actual data about the entire game than one who is super awesome at a handful of dungeons/pvp so they obviously know more about what is best for the entire game.

Azuramoonstar

Sevn wrote: »

Eyro wrote: »

Usually what I see lead to things going off the rails when I see it, is both the op and the person debating not letting it go.

Usually looks like this...

Op: I think it is important the we all remember that The crown store helps support the game we play, so it is not some evil force.

Poster1: I play games like this for the cosmetics and a large portion of what I like is locked in the crown store. So to me it is evil.

Now most at this point would say these two views are never going to align, walk away. But instead we continue.

Op: with out the money from the crown store the game closes and you get nothing.

Poster1: I get nothing now because as I said I want cosmetics.

Op: they have to make money some how they are a business.

Poster1: so sell equipment instead.

Op: that is pay to win.

Poster1: what do I care, I don’t pvp. I want to earn cosmetics in game.

And so on for 3-5 pages. Never going anywhere until finally one of them snaps and goes, ‘Your Stupid.’

All because they couldn’t look at each other and go, I disagree with you, you disagree with me. And that is ok. Im going to walk away now.

This in a nutshell. I don't expect people to agree with every opinion I put out and I appreciate those that articulate why. What I can't stand is when someone states their opinion as fact, supported with numbers they pulled out of their bumhole and go on and on about why their opinion is more valid than another's.

I'm guilty of entertaining these players for far too long because it is entertaining, but I'm always the first to walk away. To top it off if you disagree with them you're white knighting for Zos, all because you'd rather put your trust in the people with actual data about the entire game than one who is super awesome at a handful of dungeons/pvp so they obviously know more about what is best for the entire game.

i've seen the reverse just as much, this post is pretty much proving it. You can't generalize everyone, or paint the community with a wide brush.

Enslaved

First of all, baiting threads should be closed asap, before they generate drama.
Known baiters that post plain and simple bs threads should be 1st to be warned.
Also, threads with high RP elements should be in RP subforum.
Same is with threads related to PvP only, there is PvP subforum for that.
Etc.

Beardimus

I think whats imperative is that any penalty system also applies to the original poster.

As of late we have a number of people regularly starting threads around contentious issues seemingly to either farm forum points or some other motives.

This type of behaviour ruins the enjoyment of the forum for the majority. And of course heavy debate ensues, and things spiral. It's like a more intelligent form of baiting that's hard for the mods to moderate.

Sadly in forums live trolls.

Many of these regular posts get shut. And i think the originators often try to blame the other contributants however clearly the thread was going to go one way.

I think more needs to be done to moderate this type of behaviour and it gets old very quickly. And its clear to the community who the regular offenders are.

Fortunately ZOS have done a great job of late shutting many of these threads. Just a shame more cant be done.

Beardimus

Aliyavana wrote: »

I really hate how the argonians derailed and got my thread to be closed. It was simply to warn summerset of the argonian threat.

Lol, perfect.

Beardimus

DoctorESO wrote: »

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Tasear wrote: »

Yes but free speech agrument. This would be hard.

Free Speech 1st Amedment style doesn't apply to a private forum. We agree to abide by the Community Rules here on the forums.

It still applies "in spirit" in that people still expect to not unfairly get their freedom of speech suppressed. People will take great issue with that and the consequence could simply be a deserted forum or a forum where there is little actual debate, where ideas and opinions only gets expressed in limited form. I think these forums in its current state is very lively, and people express great creativity, different opinions and interesting debates. Of course a company may not want that, and in that case an oppressive forum moderation could be implemented. Question is do we want that?

i know I wouldn't it sucks to have autism and people misunderstand posts or twist them and/or cherry pick them to make you out to be the bad guy. I've been perma ban from the ff14 forums over misunderstandings, due to my blunt posting.

The forums are the only way in ff14 to post bug reports, so when you are perma ban, you can't really report bugs. I think ZoS does a decent job as removing really bad posts. I had a few 1 post last year get flagged, and when I questioned it, the ZoS person kindly explained what My post did wrong.

I have done/try to do better to keep my posts civil. I rather not see the "safe space" mentality that people are free to say anything, but immune to critiquing by others. Yes keep debates civil, but we should be able to call others out for bs, when they try to give it.

I would say not to "call others out for [snip]," but to focus on the logic/reasoning behind the statement made by the person.

you can dress it nicely, but calling others out is calling others out. You can/should be nice/logical. I did say I am blunt lol. I have to be, autism sucks to have. It can make the most basic of conversation difficult to have.

Sure. I'm just saying that the focus should be on the argument rather than the person making the argument.

I disagree, if that person is behaving in a certain way. I.e. Raising repeated threads about contentious issues that have been flogged to death before in a canny way so they are not an exact copy of the debate.

If i start raising daily threads like
-Buff Sorc wards
- hide vampirism
- auction house
- no need for auction house
- vMA token system
- i love crown crates
- buying XP in crown store
- buying Gold in crown store
- Miata is legit
- morrowind is P2W
- summerset is P2W

Etc etc etc etc then i genuinely would say the responses can be about me. As my messages are lost not in canny debate but in the fact that my behaviour would be troll-ish.

So i think you are wrong. People who bait, should be called out for baiting. Full stop.
[edited to remove quote]

Aesthier

DoctorESO wrote: »

I would say not to "call others out for [snip]," but to focus on the logic/reasoning behind the statement made by the person.

That can be hard to do when they post 2 pages supporting nothing of substance and only [snip]
[edited for profanity bypass & to remove quote]

Feanor

A foolproof method of stopping threads being derailed and closed: Don’t argue at all, pat everyone on the back, and compliment the devs on a great game and awesome job.

ZOS_JesC

Good morning, this thread is still on topic, however we removed a few comments for naming and shaming/baiting. Please keep future comments constructive and civil. Thanks!

Sevn

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

Sevn wrote: »

Eyro wrote: »

Usually what I see lead to things going off the rails when I see it, is both the op and the person debating not letting it go.

Usually looks like this...

Op: I think it is important the we all remember that The crown store helps support the game we play, so it is not some evil force.

Poster1: I play games like this for the cosmetics and a large portion of what I like is locked in the crown store. So to me it is evil.

Now most at this point would say these two views are never going to align, walk away. But instead we continue.

Op: with out the money from the crown store the game closes and you get nothing.

Poster1: I get nothing now because as I said I want cosmetics.

Op: they have to make money some how they are a business.

Poster1: so sell equipment instead.

Op: that is pay to win.

Poster1: what do I care, I don’t pvp. I want to earn cosmetics in game.

And so on for 3-5 pages. Never going anywhere until finally one of them snaps and goes, ‘Your Stupid.’

All because they couldn’t look at each other and go, I disagree with you, you disagree with me. And that is ok. Im going to walk away now.

This in a nutshell. I don't expect people to agree with every opinion I put out and I appreciate those that articulate why. What I can't stand is when someone states their opinion as fact, supported with numbers they pulled out of their bumhole and go on and on about why their opinion is more valid than another's.

I'm guilty of entertaining these players for far too long because it is entertaining, but I'm always the first to walk away. To top it off if you disagree with them you're white knighting for Zos, all because you'd rather put your trust in the people with actual data about the entire game than one who is super awesome at a handful of dungeons/pvp so they obviously know more about what is best for the entire game.

i've seen the reverse just as much, this post is pretty much proving it. You can't generalize everyone, or paint the community with a wide brush.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Rouven

Let's all work on it and not feed the trolls.

DuskMarine

its gonna be almost impossible to pull it off though wouldnt it

Knowledge

Sting864 wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

I also propose they make it a rule that youre only allowed to create a certain number of threads within a certain time period. And once you hit that cap you are locked out from making new threads. This will help with the spam and slow down the incessant creation of threads that are created with the sole purpose of making the OPs opinion the centerpiece of a discussion thats already in progress elsewhere.

Yeah because limiting speech is a liberating thing to do....

Limiting speech and trying to get people to be nicer are different things.

The forum doesn't protect "hate speech".

Merlin13KAGL

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

DuskMarine

Knowledge wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

I also propose they make it a rule that youre only allowed to create a certain number of threads within a certain time period. And once you hit that cap you are locked out from making new threads. This will help with the spam and slow down the incessant creation of threads that are created with the sole purpose of making the OPs opinion the centerpiece of a discussion thats already in progress elsewhere.

Yeah because limiting speech is a liberating thing to do....

Limiting speech and trying to get people to be nicer are different things.

The forum doesn't protect "hate speech".

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

i think that zos should have some control over what we post in certain parts of the forums. but in like general discussion id say would be a fine area for like a social part as long as everything stays in the zone of ok.

Knowledge

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

The way you worded your post it seems as if you are advocating the derailment of any thread you don't like, disagree with, or deem as misinformed.

Beardimus

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

Spot on. Agree

Beardimus

Knowledge wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

The way you worded your post it seems as if you are advocating the derailment of any thread you don't like, disagree with, or deem as misinformed.

I disagree, i think he's stating that when a thread is started on odd / multiple or undefined 'rails' purposely by the original poster its actually quite hard to keep the thing on the OPs intended rail. In particular if the OP themselves murk the debate by going on tangents and engaging in argumentation.

And i concur that any voting / policing needs to apply to thread starters as well as contributors.

Merlin13KAGL

Knowledge wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

The way you worded your post it seems as if you are advocating the derailment of any thread you don't like, disagree with, or deem as misinformed.

No, that's how you're choosing to interpret it.

I suspect the general tone of replies that follows a given thread just might be an indicator of how much value and validity the forum goers feel is present in that thread.

If there seems to be a pattern of outcomes, perhaps the underlying reason should be considered?.

A useful thread should be privileged to useful replies and debate. Those that participate in a useful manner should equally be privileged to useful threads.

Sheezabeast

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.

But then they keep going.

As often do the originator's threads. (And no, this isn't directed towards anyone specific)

OP, you'd be fine with the same demerit system applying to thread creation, too, with limitations put in place, or straight up having the privilege revoked?

Because, there end up being a lot of threads that are misleading, misinformed, or flat out designed with care to stir up controversy while trying to hide under the guise of adding something new to an often tired and repeated topic or conversation.

TL;DR; Indirectly, your complaint is about off topic and responses that do not add to the value of the topic at hand (whatever that topic may be), but how about the same rules applying to the OP's as applies to those that reply.

What qualifies as topic or 'valid' opinion or discussion seems to have a wide berth of interpretation on any given day.

The way you worded your post it seems as if you are advocating the derailment of any thread you don't like, disagree with, or deem as misinformed.

No, that's how you're choosing to interpret it.

I suspect the general tone of replies that follows a given thread just might be an indicator of how much value and validity the forum goers feel is present in that thread.

If there seems to be a pattern of outcomes, perhaps the underlying reason should be considered?.

A useful thread should be privileged to useful replies and debate. Those that participate in a useful manner should equally be privileged to useful threads.

Well said! There are times when posters just can not for the life of them read the room.

Korah_Eaglecry

Sting864 wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

I also propose they make it a rule that youre only allowed to create a certain number of threads within a certain time period. And once you hit that cap you are locked out from making new threads. This will help with the spam and slow down the incessant creation of threads that are created with the sole purpose of making the OPs opinion the centerpiece of a discussion thats already in progress elsewhere.

Yeah because limiting speech is a liberating thing to do....

Yeah because allowing posters to endlessly create spam and making more work for the moderators, and effectively keeping them from policing the forums the way they were intended is really working out for us here.

Im not suggesting that posters not be allowed to comment all they want and please. Simply proposing that posters dont have a need or shouldnt be entitled to create a plethora of threads in one sitting or in a small time frame. Which we have seen a lot of lately because of the lack of moderation on spam. We dont need 4-5 threads about Crown Crate Sales. We dont need 4-5 threads about any of the spin the wheel topics that come up. Especially when said topics are known bait threads full of flamewars.

Limiting thread creations to a time period does not prevent posters from actually discussing or creating discussions about what they want to talk about. It simply prevents posters from making an unlimited number of threads that can and have prevented other posters from having their topics seen and participated in. But by all means continue to water down my suggestion by implying Im trying to deny others their free speech or attacking someones liberties.

Zorgon_The_Revenged

DoctorESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Sheezabeast wrote: »

They could make it where we could down-vote comments on threads, that may help a little.

I would oppose that because I believe it will lead to people downvoting posts just because they don't agree, or they may have a personal grudge against the poster. This is something reddit suffers heavily from, and it can't be solved. With downvotes comes massive abusive usage for a ton of other reasons than what was intended.

Yes, I'd be afraid of that as well. We used to have a LOL reaction button (in addition to agree, insightful, and awesome), but that was removed because people were using it like a downvote button and as a way to ridicule others.

No, there has only ever been 3 reaction buttons, I'm sure the LOL button was changed to the insightful button but it's that long ago.

EDIT: Well it seems that there was 4 buttons at one point and even a "disagree" button, well I'm confused now.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/149837/the-lol-button/p1

Doctordarkspawn

Any system that puts moderation in the hands of the people will invaribly be abused because people have agenda's. We will see posts with stuff people dont like opinion wise get de-merited. No. This can only end badly.

Knowledge

Instead of a demerit system maybe we could have a system that reward relevant topics and contribution to the topics. This would incentivize good behavior.

Ley

I would be happy with a simple down-voting option. If someone is posting garbage on the forums, I'd like them to know. If I could down-vote then I wouldn't have to express my feelings with words.