Really necessary?

[philu]

Could someone please take the keys to the padlocks away from Xavier??

It is hardly constructive to post a comment on a thread then immediately lock it so that no-one can give an opinion in return. Is it? Not IMHO.

I have always been critical of the moderators letting threads run too long in the past. However, you (i.e. Nevrax/CSR/moderators) have now gone too far the other way!

You ask us to be constructive and considerate. I would ask you to do the same please. By all means lock a thread if it is causing flames or has abusive comments in it or has gone on too long.

I look around this forum and see any number of threads locked. Not all of them have any kind of the above in them. They simply contain comments on Nevrax's new super-lock policy. Locking them just makes it look to me like you intend to lock any thread you don't like or is even remotely against your view of how the game should be.

I'm not saying that is the case. I'm just trying to 'constructively' point out that this is how it SEEMS when I have come back to the forums after a day away.

I don't know if this is your intention or not, only Nevrax knows that. All I know is I now no longer want to post on these forums (did I hear cheers at the back? ). Reading the recent posts, seeing all the locks, has left a bad taste. This no longer looks like an open forum IMHO.

Censorship is an ugly word but that is how it looks from here. Sorry.

[philu]

P.S. feel free to lock this, I've said my peace.

[hans1976]

Add to all arguments posted here by philu the sword of Bah-Nin hovering over our heads all the time and all my arguments will only be a repetition of this good post.

All is said now on this subject, only the future can tell if any space can be on the forums for new opinions.

/tar philu
/bow

For you and some other no longer speaking are the wisest of homin.

alt-F4
*boots that arcade solo game with build-in IRCchat. Orcs, trolls, elves, undead, you know the thing*

[aylwyne]

I posted this earlier on a thread that got deleted, probably due to the very hostile post that started that other thread:

The ban (of grimjim) itself was incredibly questionable. There wasn't anything in grimjim's post that warranted a ban of any length, in my opinion. It really does seem to me that it was done just to make an example out of him, which I don't think is a good reason for handing out punishment.

To do it publicly is inexcusable to me. First of all, doesn't it violate the policy of not giving out information about disciplinary action taken by Nevrax against players? Also, doesn't it violate the first line in the code of conduct that states, "You may not harass, threaten, embarrass nor discomfort any other players."? Publicly announcing someone's ban definitely falls smack in the middle of "embarrass" and "discomfort".

[philu]

Well since it hasn't been locked yet ( ), I have one very final word to say.

This just about summed it up! What kind of reason is that? A brief (but longer than THAT!) explanation, possibly citing examples, would have been acceptable. The content of that email is, quite frankly, a joke.

Time to try very hard to go forum turkey.

[ajsuk]

Well since it hasn't been locked yet ( ), I have one very final word to say.

This just about summed it up! What kind of reason is that? A brief (but longer than THAT!) explanation, possibly citing examples, would have been acceptable. The content of that email is, quite frankly, a joke.

Time to try very hard to go forum turkey.

Posted something similar somewhere else, P..
It's total.. yeah..

[rob01]

A brief (but longer than THAT!) explanation, possibly citing examples, would have been acceptable.

Hey..give the guy a break..it _was_ longer than 10 characters after all!!

[sydius21]

I believe they should at least avoid saying you were "trolling" -- I would be highly offended.

[mrshad]

When you are loosing in a war of ideas, you have two options:

Come up with better ideas, or silence your opponents.

This new outbreak of forum terror-mongering might just be neccisary, from a Nevrax point of view.

Many of us are unhappy with the poor excuse for content that we recieved in E2. We have given that unhappiness voice on the forums. Since word-of-mouth is just about the only way this game gets exposure, these forums are a vital part of the advertising effort.

As a significant amount of the older players are being driven off because of E2, there is an increased need to attract players that are more open to the idea of shallow PvP conflict. A forum that is full of well made arguments against PvP is not going to create an environment that will make potential PvP-centric player comfortable.

This whole debacle smacks of the last, desperate acts of a company realizing their vision is not what the players they have really want, while at the same time understanding that the people who like to gank without consequence have already found games that appeal to them.

Bitting the hand that feeds you....perhaps someone should ask Jessica why that isn't a good idea.

[mrshad]

The ban (of grimjim) itself was incredibly questionable. There wasn't anything in grimjim's post that warranted a ban of any length, in my opinion. It really does seem to me that it was done just to make an example out of him, which I don't think is a good reason for handing out punishment.

To do it publicly is inexcusable to me. First of all, doesn't it violate the policy of not giving out information about disciplinary action taken by Nevrax against players? Also, doesn't it violate the first line in the code of conduct that states, "You may not harass, threaten, embarrass nor discomfort any other players."? Publicly announcing someone's ban definitely falls smack in the middle of "embarrass" and "discomfort".

The heavy-handed new policy means that any bans, suspentions and post-edits are not embarassing marks of something that has crossed a line, but have become marks of honor.

Nevrax will censure and opinion that they do not agree with.
Feedback other than "Great job, guys! Please let me be ganked more!" simply isn't constructive, and will be deleted.

Some of the best and brightest have been "punished" recently, and can we really consider an action given in response to excellence a punishment?