Absolute Rubbish

I wouldn’t call it white knighting, because I agree on several of your points, in general. However, I’d say many of them don’t apply in context of this particular discussion we’re having here.

To refresh the context:

  1. @Rollotomozi started a discussion about whether blocking a certain specific bit of content would be against the rules.
  2. The discussion was civil, calm, and genuinely focused on the topic.
  3. The thread got summarily closed with a canned message referencing Zendesk and TOS.
  4. @Rollotomozi then opened this topic to complain about the closing of the original thread.
  5. I replied that opening this topic probably wouldn’t result in anything useful, given the way the forums are being moderated lately. I referenced @Xevyr’s case as a way to point out the problems with moderation.

So, given that context, let’s look at what you said:

If we’re talking about effort, it takes more effort to close a thread than to leave it open. On the other hand, it takes more effort to consider carefully before judging whether the thread should be closed or left open, than it takes to just skim it as superficially as possible and then close it because it fits some very simple criteria.

When it comes to promoting a business, however, the whole point becomes moot, because let’s be serious here: the nuances of moderation on these forums will have no impact on their business whatsoever. All they have to do is make sure these forums are not a breeding ground for certain forms of speech that bring bad reputation and that’s enough to protect their business. Everything else is completely unnecessary and has no real impact on their bottom line.

No one here is disputing their authority to do so. They have the right to do a sloppy job, or to abuse the power of moderation, or to do whatever the heck they want with these forums.

We’re just saying it sucks and it often makes no sense.

Agreed in general, but in this context? If we’re talking about the thread that got closed, there was no abuse or non-constructive criticism.

If we’re talking about @Xevyr’s silencing, you could technically say that the joke at the end was “abuse”, but the rest of his comment was constructive criticism and the joke was clearly labeled as such and much, much less abusive than a whole bunch of other comments that had pure vitriol and no constructive criticism. And yet, he’s the one who got a 7-day timeout for that.

I’ve been in contact with @Xevyr during his “removal from the situation”, and I can assure you he took it with self-reflection, empathy, and humility. In fact, it was more self-reflection, empathy, and humility than I would’ve displayed in his shoes.

None of that changes the fact that what happened to him was abuse of moderation powers and that the rest of the staff did absolutely nothing to rectify that.

And yes, I know they have the authority to do that. And I know @Xevyr isn’t making a big deal out of it. It’s still an injustice, no matter how much Tae Tae makes fun of the idea.

In short, I agree with you on this general point, but it definitely doesn’t apply in this case. The fault is with those who abused the power and with those who could have fixed that but didn’t.

True. It’s human to make mistakes like that. It’s also nice to recognize one’s own mistakes and work to undo them or make amends. Whoever did this had 7 days to realize they acted disproportionately and revert their decision. Likewise, others with the same power to revert it had 7 days to do so.

But I guess that brings us back to your first point about effort and business? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I don’t think I could call this thread positive and keep a straight face. Hell, the thread that got closed and sparked this discussion, that was actually positive. Compare it to this one and tell me this one is worth keeping alive while that one needed to be closed.

Call me cynical, but I think this thread is being kept alive because the wiser among the mods and community managers know that it will eventually either run out of steam, or cross a line that justifies closure, whereas closing it prematurely would only risk spawning yet another one in its image.

Why? Why do people honestly believe this? Like I said in my reply to your first point, I don’t think these “negative implications” would do anything to Funcom’s bottom line.

In fact, other companies suffered much bigger blows to their reputations, for much more serious reasons, and yet they’re still happily in business, because too few consumers actually give a shіt.

That said, I’ve finally come to the belated realization that I’m not heeding my own advice. I started my participation in this thread by saying it wasn’t going to produce anything useful, and yet I’m spending my time here being pointlessly quixotic about something that won’t have any impact.

I’m not saying I’m going to stop participating here, I’m just saying I’ll try :laughing: