Ur-Quan wrote: »

It depends on the post. If it's written in a reasonable, well thought out manner, then yes absolutely. If the post having issues with the game is written more along the lines of "ZOMG this SUX" then no, absolutely not.

I've never seen a post like "ZOMG this SUX" without some kind of explanation behind it.

Have a link?

It absolutely is. Saying to someone to learn to play, or telling them to go play another game is the same thing. You don't see it because you're honestly skewed to one side.. having seen you post around a lot. I'm skewed to one side as well.

You're telling the person what they like, and what they need to do in both cases, and kinda trying to force your own opinion on them. In a positive thread, there is no reason to make a statement about how that person is going to hate the game. You don't know them, all you know is they like what they are playing now. Just as a person saying L2P or go back to WoW doesn't know the person they're insulting. They're making generalizations based on their own experiences.

Yeah, maybe you have a valid complaint about end game in your mind, but it doesn't really belong in a thread where a person is saying they're happy at level 10. You're raining on their parade, and trying to drag them down. You don't see it as a personal attack, probably in the same way I don't see telling someone to play another game (even WoW) as a personal attack... mainly because I truly believe if you dislike a game for what it is, and find it frustrating to play, you should find something else. L2P is also very loosely a personal attack.. it's definitely not constructive, but it's also not telling someone they suck.. it's telling them to improve... the attack part comes in when the person saying it has negative intent, same with coming into a thread and telling a person they're going to hate the game.

Your two threads I don't really find to be good examples. They're kinda cherry picked, and don't really speak to the general postings that go on in all the other threads.. where both positive and negative comments are met with hostility all the time.

If you don't want to see the other side of things, that's all fine and dandy. That's your choice and all. However, coming from someone who has gotten called a fanboy quite a bit.. and also been called stupid for opinions on what should or shouldn't be improved in the game (from both sides), I kinda see both sides of it... There are quite a few people who make lots of suggestions on improving the game. Frequently post about bugs.. but the moment they say something positive about the game they're attacked for it.

Blackwidow wrote: »

(which is the same as telling someone L2P or go play WoW.. because you're telling them they're going to learn to hate the game).

Saying the game is going to get worse is a complaint about the end game. It is not an insult to the player.

It is absolutely not the same as "Go play woW" or L2P.

Someone who is negative about the game can attack the game as a surrogate for the person who is positive about the game.

Someone who is positive about the game cannot level a complaint about game to address the person who is negative.

They usually resort to attacking a proxy for the other person, such as telling them to go back to WoW.

It can also be difficult to distinguish between legit criticism of the game and those who bash it just to get under the skin of those who like it. And this is what skews the perception that one side only attacks the game, and the other attacks the poster. In truth both sides have people who attack each other, one side just has a better proxy to use.

The only arguments I have ever had on any forum in any game is from people who use the kind of comments like "L2P' "noob" "Fanboi" etc.... I despise these people with a pure hatred. They have the luxury of anonymity and they take full advantage off it. They are true cowards who have no inkling of a spine to ever speak to someone's face they way they do on Internet forums. Truly weak specimens of the species.

These people act this way in order to compensate for a low self esteem, or lacking some sort of value in their lives. Many need justification and validation, and try to alleviate how "bad" they feel about themselves and/or their lives. Whatever the source, these people suffer from both character and personality deficiencies. So getting angry at the elitists/Rambos/trolls etc. for attacking others on forums is no different than getting angry at the mentally handicapped for drooling on themselves. Many people have become only so smart, refined, and/or polite. No matter how much, or in what manner, you try to educate them they will never become any more intelligent, or decent people, than they currently are.

I believe the quote goes: "Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are the bird is going to take a dump on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

Blackwidow wrote: »

Keeping insults out of the forums would not make them look like trolls. It would keep the forums friendly and respectful.

As for your comment about how posters take it as an insult on them, it is because it IS an insult on them.

Me: I think the graphics suck

Poster: You suck. Go back to WoW.

This is a personal attack and comments like this are allowed to stay on the forums.

Have you been reporting personal attacks and seeing no action, or is this just a "why don't the mods see everything" thread?

If folks make insulting statements that you cannot take, report them. Most stuff doesn't rise to that level. if it doesn't, put on your big boy/girl pants and move on.

We will have the tone on this forum that we set, largely by example.

Maybe this why the in game trolls are so darned hard to kill, they are powered by forum ragers.

Blackwidow wrote: »

Lalai wrote: »

Your two threads I don't really find to be good examples. They're kinda cherry picked, and don't really speak to the general postings that go on in all the other threads.. where both positive and negative comments are met with hostility all the time.

They were not cherry picked. They were created as a social example. They are polar opposites.

They are a great example of a post for and against ESO.

They are absolutely cherry picked. You're using two threads only as a justification for making an assumption on an entire forum simply because they fit your argument. You're also seeming to compare just raw numbers, which isn't really fair (percentages would be better).. and discrediting what feels like a personal attack to the other side just because you don't see it that way.

Yeah, there are likely numerically more attacks on negative posters... but the forums are also made up of a large percentage of negative posts. So if percentages were used, it would make sense that more negative posts are attacked simply because there are more of them to attack. Point being, whether you make a positive or negative post here.. you're going to get attacked by someone for it a large majority of the time.

Again, the problem is with the people (because it is usually the same repeat offenders that are doing the name calling on both sides). It is not that it's okay to attack one side and not the other. On either side it's definitely not okay.

The whole sinking of threads thing is an entirely different issue, and I would agree with you that it's not something that should be happening. I'm not sure why they do it, but it's not because of name calling, or there would be a lot more threads sinking into oblivion.

Edited to add: I've seen quite a few threads completely closed because they were telling others to stop complaining. So moderators absolutely do also moderate the other side of things.

2nd edit: To clarify what I mean by percentages. Say 90% of negative posts get attacked. 90% of positive posts also get attacked. There are 1000 negative posts on the forums, and 10 positive posts. 900 negative posters got attacked, but only 9 positive ones did. That doesn't mean the negative posters are treated differently, just means there are more of them so it's seen more often. In reality both sides are guilty of the personal attacks, and both sides need to cut it out.

driosketch wrote: »

Someone who is negative about the game can attack the game as a surrogate for the person who is positive about the game.

No, it is just a negative view of the game. It is not an attack on the person at all.

Someone who is positive about the game cannot level a complaint about game to address the person who is negative.

Simply not true.

If i say the guild bank needs better tools. You can say you disagree and you think the bank is just fine.

That is a counter opinion. No insult needed.

It can also be difficult to distinguish between legit criticism of the game and those who bash it just to get under the skin of those who like it.

Why try?

Just respond with the facts of the game as you see them. There is no need to get personal.

If you really think the person is just trolling, don't post to that person.

And this is what skews the perception that one side only attacks the game, and the other attacks the poster. In truth both sides have people who attack each other, one side just has a better proxy to use.

Simply not true.

If you take it as an insult because I complain about the game, that is an issue you have and is not coming from me.

RubyTigress wrote: »

Blackwidow wrote: »

ErilAq wrote: »

If anything, I think the Negative posts are by their very nature negative.

Is it possible to look at posts having issues with the game as a positive thing that can help make the game better?

Absolutely. But it largely depends in how the criticism is presented.

I disagree for the most part. If they give a reason for why they are upset, even if it comes across as rage or crying, it is still a valid complaint that can be addressed in a mature and polite manner.

Or ignored if the case calls for it.

Blackwidow wrote: »

Ur-Quan wrote: »

It depends on the post. If it's written in a reasonable, well thought out manner, then yes absolutely. If the post having issues with the game is written more along the lines of "ZOMG this SUX" then no, absolutely not.

I've never seen a post like "ZOMG this SUX" without some kind of explanation behind it.

Have a link?

It's not based purely on whether there's an explanation behind it - it's whether there's a useful explanation behind it that shows that the poster has actually thought about it and isn't just posting in blind anger.

Here's an example of the kind of post I'm talking about in the "ZOMG this SUX" completely unhelpful category:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/110248/eso-wants-us-to-hate-this-game

Having said that, I would say that it's relatively rare to find such posts. The majority of the negative posts have at least a kernel of a useful complaint and/or suggestion in them.

daneyulebub17_ESO wrote: »

GreySix wrote: »

Personal attacks or ad homonim attacks are never exusable, for any reason.

Well, there's a question to how "personal" an insult about someone's opinion on a forum really can be. Short of doxing them and putting out their personal info, is it really "personal" if I say something insulting based on a comment and a game name?

There are limits, of course, but when I see yet another "F2P in a month!" type posts, I don't mind watching the OP get buried in a hail of sarcasm and smack down. I actually find that stuff rather entertaining. Keeps the forum lively

Personal Attack:

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

As you can plainly see, there is no place for personal attacks in logical debate. It is the last resort of those for whom any form of logical discourse has failed. In short, personal attacks are a concession of the argument - an admission of defeat.