If that's how they are going to interpret the rule then yes they should change it. The Chillrend thread had no reason to be closed. No person or guild was being "named and shamed".

The whole name & shame policies are ludicrous in any online game. Your reputation is all you got here and it shouldn't be impervious to all attacks like a sorc with ward on.

PS: Nerf sorcs.

filmoretub17_ESO wrote: »

I think there is confusion and I don't know why it is very loosely interpreted. Under the code of conduct you cannot name someone for the purpose of shaming them. Yet Zos will close any thread that names a player or guild even though it is not intended as a shame. I think it should be modified in the code of conduct to clarify that players are not allowed to name each other for any reason since that seems to be the case.

The issue is that naming that leads to shaming or showing members or groups of members in any kind of negative way is not allowed. It is not so that the person naming is the wrong person. For example:

Person X: Ranique is the most awesome guy!
Person Y: "rolls eyes.

This is also naming and shaming. Just the fact that person x does the naming and person Y did the shaming doesn't matter. It is not that person X will get into trouble for this.

So to avoid this, yes it is better to not name anyone.
I do think that ZoS should upheld this more by changing comments that name and or shame, instead of closing a whole thread. The main purpose of the closed thread was to discuss the way guilds move around campaigns and how it influences the balance in a fight. There is nothing wrong with that. It is just when one guildname entered the scene that it started to get too much focused around that name instead of the main point. By simply editing it out and making a green post, it would have been back on track.

To say something in favour of the mods though. The way the quoting system works, means that whenever you quote someone that is "naming" and/or "shaming" this is copied. when a mod then arrives later and changes the initial comment, he also has to change all the quotes. In such a situation I can understand that it is more effectivly to close the entire thread.

rajaniemiorama_ESO wrote: »

It's mostly because one person will name for reference and another will shame them.

Understandable. Sometimes it's best to nip things in the bud but there comes a point when personal accountability should come into play. If you censored everything simply based on the actions of a few bad apples nobody would ever be able to accomplish anything .

I mean come on, if they're going to enforce the naming and shaming rule to such an extreme that one can't even mention a name for the sake of reference, then they may as well remove Guild Recruitment along with several sections from the Community forums. Plus penalize anybody who honestly forgot to blank out the names on a screenshot they posted or has the name of their character or guild tacked to their forum signature.

Naturally if the thread was in itself created with malicious intent, close it. Same if it's degraded into a morass of name calling and spite completely beyond salvaging. Closing a thread because somebody is just asking if guild/player X is still active or changed servers? That might be a tad overkill.